Death From Above

Oh no, I am not debating whether you are entitled to an opinion. I have no problem with you having it. I am not even arguing the thought process in regards to you putting the meat in front of the horns. You can have your opinion and I am 100% OK with that. I might argue some points on the other side for sure, but I am in no way arguing with you over the topic of trophy hunting, as much as how you have approached it. It is different when you condemn something and say that they are scumbags, question their desires and frame them as “pieces of sh#t”. That is an example of being intolerant. I am not intolerant of your opinion even when I disagree with it. But I won’t resort to calling names which puts them on a level with some sort of law violator. You are condemning people with a strong love for the same sport of hunting as you love (I make and assumption here), they just have a different reason for loving it. Advocating that their reason is not valid through name calling is obviously not tolerance, and by insinuating they are scumbags you are saying that there is no place for it in the sport of hunting. That becomes far less than accepting another’s opinion, and moves toward advocating for a change in the rights of hunters. Just as I indicated in my last post, I don’t fall for antics from leftist or get hurt feelings when people like yourself condemn me for loving this sport, the meat it provides, and the freedom to go anywhere I would like to enjoy it even more. I see your opinion and antics for what they are, and not as a simple expression of an opinion on the subject. One of us is making the effort to push an agenda on the other, and in this case it is not me as you put forth above. I will readily accept your opinion that hunting for meat is more important than hunting for horns, I can see the logic and accept the rationale. I see other reasons for hunting deer as well. Can you accept my opinion, and allow for my preferences? You say that you can, but then you call me a scumbag for it. Just doesn't make sense. So, there is obviously no need for us to carry this on any farther. I cannot change your opinion that you shouldn’t be calling fellow hunters names and condemning their legal hunting efforts that you don’t appreciate. And you won’t convince me that I should just accept you pushing and anti-hunting agenda by belittling the reasons that others should like hunting because it doesn’t match your preferred intentions.

Hurt feelings? Nope. I find it difficult to have my feelings hurt by simpletons not smart enough to realize that he’s advocating the wrong cause. If you think something is so terribly wrong, I am sure you’d like to see it done away with. If you can’t see what kind of win it would be for anti-hunting if they took away hunting over state lines and any form of “trophy” hunting, then you might as well go stand in line and hold a PETA sign at one of their rallies. Wondering if you already have the T-shirt. In addition, calling people names isn’t criticism, but you can’t seem to figure that out either. Have to explain this to my three-year-old when he gets upset with his older brother. Luckily, if he is like his older siblings he will grow out of it and won’t resort to name calling when he gets a little older. Apparently, you never were taught that lesson. Morals…yes mine are different than yours. Your name calling has put that on public display. You remind me of what I watch on TV from the young liberal left. Screaming, hollering, name calling, sign toting, protest everything. They don’t accept any view but their own, and they want to disrupt anything they can, just cause “it is their right” to do so. I have no idea who you are or what age you might be, but you paint this picture clearly in my mind. Not sure what ever happened to accepting other opinions instead of condemning and name calling, but you are living proof that it is going to the pot.

Who else calls hunters...hunting legally...scumbags?????? Anti-hunters do, that's who. Either one of the two of the actions you described of these LEGAL hunters deserves the scumbag term in your opinion. Was it their desire to hunt deer in other states? Or was it the willingness to give the deer away because they didn’t absolutely need it themselves? Both are legal, and far from controversial, unless you are an anti-hunter. I can’t hunt free range elk or moose here in NY, and I’d love to do so, but I don’t need all the meat. You define me as a scumbag because of those details. If not, and you say hunting another species is OK out of state, then there is no reason I can’t go hunt whitetails somewhere else. Just cause we have whitetails in this state doesn’t mean I am a scumbag for wanting to hunt them elsewhere. What if I simply enjoy taking a trip to the Midwest to hunt with friends? It can be a lot of fun! I have good friends that I go with, they aren't scumbags. I was really hoping that you might just be passionate about how important the meat is to the hunt, and you just didn’t choose the right words to show a different opinion on the matter from some of your fellow sportsmen. I had hoped that was the case, until you continued to stand by those words after being asked why you would call a legal hunter a scumbag. Again, who else calls legal hunters scumbags? No one, just anti-hunters. What other conclusion would you like me to arrive at?

I have used a Scott Little Goose for the past three years, but I am trying something new now. Filming my hunts for the past (2) years has created quite a challenge. One of those is getting the release on and off the string to move the camera, focus, or turn the GoPro on with that other remote that I often forget before picking up the bow. I still screw things up quite a bit, and sometimes go into that "kill" mode when I see the deer coming instead of using that time wisely to get filming. Just acquired a Stan JustX, and a Carter Insatiable 3 from a friend. Really like shooting the thumb barrels so far, and I am hoping it makes filming and hunting an easier combination. Seems like it would be easier to let go of the release instead of taking a release off the string that is strapped to my wrist, and consequently makes noise when it hits my camera arm as I reach for the camera. Just hope I don't figure out how to drop one out of the tree when hunting, but I am assuming after an off season of shooting I will get accustomed to it.

Sure you do, that is correct. But I look up at the top of my browser and see huntingny.com. Funny that you choose to type anti-hunting propaganda here. Might I suggest some groups for you to consider supporting who share your opinions, such as The Defenders of Wildlife, or maybe Int. Fund for Animal Welfare, how about the stand by PETA, or you could google The American Society for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and probably the most notable Humane Society of the United States. Check those out, you will find lots of like-minded people there for sure.

Pride, huh? Well, I guess there will always be people who have lower standards than others. You calling a hunter a scumbag for going out of state to hunt a buck he doesn’t absolutely need for meat is equivalent to the opinion of a PETA member or anti-hunter IMO. It goes totally against the freedom that we have to pursue wildlife as hunters and gatherers. Didn’t say hunters and keepers. To gather doesn’t mean I have to keep, because I can decide to gather and provide for others if I choose to. States use bag limits as a means to control populations. In most states, out of state hunters are part of that equation. When I apply for an out of state tag they don’t ask me for my welfare card or food stamps to make sure I have a reason to shoot a buck there. They provide me the opportunity to help them control their population, and I get the chance to hunt in some places much different than NY. Some states require a hunter to pay a processing fee (to pay for butchering) in order to drop off a deer to donate for shelters, or a family in need. They are providing a service whether you like it or not. If you want to pull that meat off their table because of the means or generosity it took to get there, then I’d suggest that you might be the scumbag in that scenario. Hunters shoot and trappers trap predators for population control as well, but I don’t eat the coyotes I shoot. Maybe you do. If you don’t eat them I hope you don’t shoot them. And if you dare sell the pelts for profit you’d better call yourself something worse than a scumbag. After all, I am just using your rationale. Are there scumbag hunters among our ranks? I say yes. I see them when I find deer shot from the road and the heads cut off or the back straps cut out. I see them firsthand when I walk up on my neighbor who just shot two bucks with his rifle and puts tags on them that aren’t his. I note them when I see bait piles in this state near stands. Personally, I do not like the idea of baiting for deer and I have to admit that I am not in favor of fenced in hunts either. BUT, if it is legal where they are doing it, then they are within the law and I won’t judge them and call them scumbags. They are just hunters, but maybe they do it a bit different than I would choose to. Kinda like you shooting button bucks. Did you need to shoot that particular deer for meat? I don’t personally like harvesting BBs, and I will do whatever I can to keep from doing it. But if you choose to I won’t call you a scumbag. You’d be a hunter.

Very classy.

So are you saying that there is no other legitimate reason for hunting than to provide meat for your family or friends? Are you saying that guides and outfitters that provide opportunities for hunters to come and experience hunting in places such as Iowa, Colorado or Alaska are exploiting the game animals to make a living unless they verify that the hunter is in need of any meat harvested on the trip for his/her family? If I enjoy hunting whitetails in other states because of the different methods I can use, the terrain that is different, or the different challenges that those deer provide, etc… UNLESS I need that meat that I obtain during a successful hunt, I am a “scumbag”. These seem to follow your rationale, and if so, you are painting quite a few of your fellow hunters as scumbags. You are posting on this thread that you hate the idea of someone else forcing their idealogy on you and taking away choice, BUT you are determining the only acceptable choice for someone else shooting what they would like to shoot. Hope you think about that one for a minute or two.

Cannot argue your point that QDMA certainly wants to improve hunting through their efforts, and take into consideration what hunters want. Typically, that means an attempt to maintain as many deer as the habitat can handle (more deer seen when hunting), and more bucks in areas where there could certainly be more than there currently are (this means more and potentially older bucks to harvest). Don’t see where it advocates for a higher than normal number of bucks, or as many big bucks as absolutely possible. In fact, if you read a little farther you will find this: In today’s North American hunting culture, antlers are the most common and easily visible symbol of hunting achievement, but for QDMA members, many other rewards and benefits are equally cherished. That’s why we at QDMA measure success in memories, not in antler inches. And to answer your question on how QDMA knows what nature intended (I assume you are referring to the topic we have been discussing which is buck to doe ratio), please look above to my post concerning how easy it is to see what nature intends as a buck to doe ration through its birthing rate (bucks:does). I am pretty sure they advocate that same ratio, they don’t make it up to suit hunter’s desires. Improvement or maximize are the definitely words they stress, but within natural and habitat limits. I have not seen anywhere that they attempt to create an unnatural balanced herd to make hunters happier. They simply believe that due to our hunting habits, in some areas it is important that we consider adjustments to counter the unnatural and unbalanced herd that we already have (read too many does to every buck). If QDMA doesn’t use the wording you are looking for that is fine. However, if the process they advocate ends up producing the “balanced ecosystem” that you are looking for in the definition, then I’d suggest it isn’t worth harping on whether or not they use the words you prefer to see.

Spin, twist, turn. Waste of time me thinks. I’ll take your advice and not chase that tail. Why didn’t I take my own advice? Thought I gave up trying to reason with you several pages ago.

Wow, I cannot believe that you typed all that in an attempt to insinuate that I used that example for anything other than to provide an example of a situation when man effected mother nature and her wildlife.

Wow. So someone doesn’t particularly care for venison, or maybe they choose to be a vegetarian (hard to imagine I know), but they LOVE to hunt, and they give the deer to a friend or relative, and you call them a “scumbag”. Wow. Do they have to hunt only for meat to be a legitimate hunter? You certainly seem to have an opinion on exactly how everyone should think don’t you. No acceptance for other opinions it seems. It appears that you judge QDMA without knowing what they really stand for, and now you have decided that there is absolutely no way a hunter cannot be a scumbag unless he fits into your mindset on what his intention for the meat is.

So here is the difference between your opinion and mine. I am advocating that “natural” herd numbers, and the way that nature is designed, was done so WITHOUT man’s advances that affect the whole “ecosystem” you are describing. I am saying that our expansion into their ecosystem and the change to the amount of habitat they now have is not natural in many ways. We have taken a lot of their habitat, and changed much of it as well. Some for the good (agriculture) and some for the bad (housing and urban development). As hunters, we have expanded both our numbers (more people then were here when the native Americans were here alone) and in weapon range (guns are more efficient than bows and spears). You are including hunters (remember you called us "critters", right???), in our current state and proficiency as described above, as a natural predator that somehow mother nature prepared for by evaluating our future potential as predators instead of what we were. You are diminishing the effect that our advances have made on both harvest numbers, harvest patterns (hunting for horns instead of just meat in some cases), and the impact on their environment. To suggest that we do not have the potential to impact the deer in their natural state (as initiated by nature), is what you seem to imply by including our current predator status as some sort of natural occurrence. You are missing the entire point of QDM. Look at their mission – apart from what you think is all related to antler size and trophy hunters. Just take a minute and pretend that they really meant what they state in their mission statement. They are advocating a return to what NATURE saw fit to design for our deer herd. They imply that we as hunters, and by human influence other than hunting (expansion and other deer related influences) have had an effect on mother nature’s design for the deer herd. They are trying to return it to what it was before man played a big part in altering her design. They in no way are advocating some non-natural design to increase bucks and antler size above and beyond what the deer herd would be like without human interference. For this reason, I think you are not interpreting what QDM is trying to accomplish. They don’t see nature as you do. You somehow see nature as something that stays natural after man influences it. I am not sure how you come to that conclusion. We have already reached some “crests” as you put it and we in some people’s opinion are having negative effects on mother nature’s herd design. QDM is advocating a return to her design, not move away from it as you suggest. So to your point, how am I, or the QDMA “selfish” in their goals of returning nature to what she designed it to be? I can certainly argue that your desire to just let humans do what they want and let nature fend for itself is a lot more “selfish” point of view.

Manic, so if you are fairly certain that nothing we as hunters do affects all of this, do you advocate just getting rid of all our bag limits and season dates and let everyone do whatever they want. After all, it will just all take care of itself any ways. If you’d like to keep some regulations, then why do you assume that it is important to regulate just so far to protect our deer herd, but it only matters to a point that you decide on? BTW, I’m going to go elk hunting in NY this fall, cause they are still there right? We didn’t effect that population, did we? After that I will make sure that I get that bison tag for western PA again, one of these years I will get one I’m sure. I know my great, great, great, great, great uncle did back in the day. See Growalot, I can be sarcastic as well!

Yeah, I think you might be dodging your own bullets in that room. Not mine. I sourced the article for two facts: 1. 50/50 birth ratio. 2. Our observations are often different then what the ratio truly is. Please read this part at the top of that chart you referenced in your post above. It says: This example shows how even a poorly managed deer population can come close to correcting its own buck:doe ratio each year through fawn recruitment. Some key words are CLOSE TO CORRECTING. Didn’t say corrects it completely. In addition that doesn’t talk about how poorly managed a deer herd is. The poorer managed, the less it can “self-correct”. That should be pretty easy to understand I would think. Doubt they would have suggested that NY’s herd is doing an adequate job in this self-correcting process, as their organization would likely point to our state as one of – if not the worst – managed deer herd in the county. Growalot - you can't always read an article for what you want it to mean. Sometimes you have to realize that there are both generalizations and exceptions. In fact, if all deer herds self managed as you would like that statement to read, then WHY would QDM exist as an organization??? So, please point to statements in that article that do not agree with what I am suggesting in my posts in this thread. Not sure that I see much in that article, if anything that goes against my assumptions. You can change your mind all you’d like, but I am still supporting the same theories.

Agreed, that is the link that I pointed to in a post yesterday regarding the 50/50 birth ratio, as well as how we observe different ratios that are actually accurate.

As I stated. Follow the simple math. Do the math yourself if you'd like. It simply shows that it is possible for the ratio of bucks per doe to change simply through harvest rates EVEN IF fawns are born naturally 1:1. Some people wonder how it can get to a low ratio if the fawns are truly born 1:1. I supplied mathematic example of how it is possible based on two assumptions and estimates. Exact numbers were never provided or suggested. Assumptions were made ONLY to explain the POSSIBILITY. It was never my intent to say that this is specifically true to your area, and that by using the formula you can arrive at the exact number of bucks versus does in your area. It was provided to show how we can increase our number of does over bucks by using the average harvest numbers provided by the DEC if you use the 1:1 birthing ratio. That was it. I have no idea what the buck to doe ratio is in your area, or in the entire state for sure. I can point to several opinions that NY has arguably the WORST buck to doe ratio in the country. Dead last. If your area doesn't reflect that then I say great for you! But the areas that I hunt seem to be right on tack with the assumption that our ratio is in fact way out of wack.

Well I misspoke...I should have said that I could help you understand the theory or the math, but I am sure that you don't want to be helped figure that out.

Think I mentioned a few times that it wasn’t based on accurate numbers but only to show how the doe numbers can increase under our current harvest averages. It was never based on accurate herd numbers of any kind. It was based on harvest numbers provided by the DEC. Estimates. That is what I said. Did you even read it closely??? Simple math and understanding shows support for the example I provided. In addition, I even added the fact that there are other factors that are not included yet further support the increase. Never said it’s a true proportion for every area. Your response says everything. You just can’t comprehend it. Or you don’t want to. Doesn’t matter, its irrelevant. I can’t help it if you can’t understand the theory, or the math.

I have often thought about the same question when considering our current ratio (low buck to doe) in most of our state, when the birth ratio is 1:1. But lets look at it for a minute, and like you said lets take out all other factors that might cause a higher mortality rate for bucks. Lets assume they all live to old age, and the only impact is harvest numbers. Of course I have no idea how accurate harvest numbers can possibly be, but we will go with it for discussion sake. Using a base of harvest rates provided by the DEC, versus the ratio of 1:1 that has been suggested, and we somehow started with an even herd of 1 buck to 1 doe, we know that there are approximately 30,000 more does than bucks (males) in the herd at the end of a typical season. To start off that means we have 30,000 more does the next season. Once again, if they die off at the same rate naturally, and year two we once again average shooting 30,000 more males than females. There is another extra 30,000 females, totaling 60,000 more after two years. Using this math after five years we have an extra 150,000 females when compared to males. If we continued on this pattern, or relatively close to it, you can see how we are building a larger population of females. Even when taking in the higher mortality rate of bucks, this increase is still occurring. Imagine what this would look like after 10, 20 or 30 years. Once again, I am not implying these figures are typical or close to what we have currently (remember I started at 1:1 and did not imply a starting herd number). I am using it simply to show how our harvest rates in NY can build a female dominate herd even with the 1:1 birth ratio that I am suggesting.

I agree that personal observations make it hard to always believe studies that are brought up. Like you I see more buck fawns I'd say while hunting, but I think that is probably due to seeing the same deer more often in my case. When I look at camera evidence, or count numbers in groups of deer, then it makes me think there are more doe fawns in my areas. All that said, I think that fawn genders are likely random, 1:1 like most studies would say, but as I said personal observations can often make me question this. Here is how I rationalize the fact that I see a of buck fawns... I think that groups of does typically contain adults. These adults certainly feel the safety in numbers, and benefit from more eyes, noses and ears for sensing danger. Meanwhile, adult bucks have spent lots of time alone, and seem to prefer the solitude when the fall comes around (for many reasons). They are wary and don’t often hang out in groups like the does are. Doe fawns hang around adult does more and in my opinion pick up quickly on the fact that does are always nervous and on the lookout from both danger and bucks. Buck fawns, kicked out by their mothers, seem oblivious to all of this quite often. They don’t spend as much time with does once man has entered the woods to hunt them or when bucks are on the prowl. They don’t get the education that doe fawns get. For this reason they are typically the first deer out feeding, the most predictable deer on a pattern or area, and I see them much more often then other deer while hunting. They don’t know how to be wary in comparison to the doe groups, and they just walk around everywhere it seems throwing their lack of caution to the wind. While I have no idea about the brain idea that you suggest (you may be spot on), I do think that doe fawns get a much more thorough education from the adult does. Buck fawns get more of a lesson on staying away from the does, and learn to be on their own because of it. A deer that is on its own and hasn't been alive for a year yet doesn't always display a lot of caution or awareness of what is going on around them. Potential danger is not as much of a concern as figuring out why that strange creature is now in his presence, and they seem to need to come check me out if they figure out I am there. Enter the second fall of a bucks life with his first set of antlers and raging, hormones, and once again a poorer education from the older deer the fall before…now you have a deer that is highly available for harvesting by hunters.

I believe that the dispersal you are referring to is when a young buck, either before his first rut (typically at 1.5), during the rut, or after the rut leaves his home area. He disperses on his own to look for greener waters and has already learned he is not top dog in that area. He knows the does well and they don’t necessarily want him around them either, and have demonstrated that quite often I am sure. It is a great way that nature used to mix up the genetics so they don’t continue down the same path. Adult does kicking button bucks out of the group is something different, as they stay in the same area generally but don’t hang around the does. Just watch them feeding and watch the adult does come in and pester him. Dispersal refers to bucks voluntarily leaving the area, while most button bucks stay put due to familiarity. Once the rut starts I don’t often see button bucks with does, as they have been kicked out. By late season they seem to still stay separated mostly. This is what I have seen in my observations for the most part.

Buckmaster, I understand your suggestion of the "problem" you mention, but after seeing what is happening on the thread about AR I am leery of describing this as a problem myself. Don't want to start another war! In fact, if I didn't bow hunt I'd probably think that I had died and gone to heaven if I lived in this part of the state that allowed some sort of firearm from mid October to mid December. I am surprised that with so many views so far that no one has either offered an opinion on why such a long gun season, or just said that it is due to tradition, and for that reason will likely never be changed. I am assuming that is the reasoning it hasn't been addressed over the years. That said, I did not grow up here and I am curious if there is a reason better than I have come up with.

Sure, and in my area the 6-8 trail cameras I run for a good portion of the year, and all the time I spend on stand, makes me think that we see a higher number of doe fawns born in my area. Luckily, for both of us, there is a lot of money spent to study this by extensive field observations and dissection of road kill does to evaluate and study fetus genders and conception rates. They don't study just one area or two, they tend to try and find a broader sample size, yet the conclude its close to 1:1 just about every time. I think that our personal observations don't always tell the truth. Not sure I enjoyed my college statistic class back in the day, but I can't argue that large the sample size the easier it is to find a more significant and reliable mean.

Manic, are you serious when you say that the ideal buck to doe ratio is a man-made concept? I may not be able to tell you how to correctly determine the accurate buck to doe ratio to a deer, but there are several ways that both biologists and land owners can get a fairly good idea by using trail camera surveys. But your suggestion that it is a man-made concept has me confused. If you are suggesting that mother nature didn’t invent the idea first? If so, then I’d say that is a pretty easy idea to refute. Nature’s desired buck to doe ration is 1:1. If it wasn’t 1 to 1 then they would be born at that ratio. If you had to give a slight edge to either the buck or doe birth rates, it might be ever so slightly higher for bucks. Maybe that is because they lead a little more dangerous life. Or maybe she likes it that way to stave off over-population by a supplying a few less does to repopulate. If you think I am altering this stat by picking a study that might fit my liking, go to the QDM site. If ever a place you might think would suggest that doe fawns are born at a higher rate than bucks (to advocate protecting young bucks), then that would be the site. I think that most studies would say that mother nature changing this ratio on a need basis (as suggested in another post above) is a myth. How would she know this? She births them 50/50 for the most part, and the rest is handled by other factors. Buck to doe ratios isn’t a man-made concept, its nature itself. 1 to 1 is natural, not 1:2, 1:3, 1:4 or 1:5. Not 2:1, 3:1, 4:1 or 5:1. The 1:1 ratio is how she makes it happen, so it is obviously her desire. As I mentioned, and many a biologist will claim, the slight and hardly detectable skew towards buck fawns might be due to their more dangerous lifestyle, but it is so miniscule that we might be reading into that too much. We, the hunters, are the ones that have a large effect on buck to doe ratios. For instance, over a (5) year period from 2010-2014, hunters in NY averaged 132,709 male deer harvested vs. 104,021 females each year. Add the higher natural mortality rate of bucks to that and you can see why our numbers grow a lower buck to doe ratio than mother nature’s 1:1 game plan. Following this patter for 100 years and it is no wonder why much of our state is much closer to 1 buck for every 4 does than the 1:1 ratio that the deer are born at. If you stopped hunting in our state altogether, and as our herd got older and our current deer died of old age, mother nature’s natural ratio of 1:1 would take over and we’d be back closer to that figure than where we stand right now. I’d say that would answer whether buck to doe ratios are a man-made concept or not.