Death From Above

No, I won’t ever accuse the DEC of providing measures necessary to either limit the number of winter kill or in an attempt optimize the deer herd. Not in NY anyways. I certainly see that they likely feel they need a solid winterkill to aid their attempt to lower herd numbers. Will not disagree with your thoughts on that one bit. I also remember reading articles in the 90's encouraging hunters to shoot the fawns, as they were less likely to make it through the winter ahead. I remember one season, fresh off reading that article, shooting the smallest doe I have ever taken. Easiest drag I will likely ever have, but I had the toughest time reconciling it as I kept looking at her on my way out. Nothing wrong with it I realize, but I will personally never do that again. Just didn't feel right to me. I also agree that if winterkill is necessary, the deer that should be driving that number up should be made up of fawns, older deer, unhealthy deer for whatever reason, and the bucks that have worn themselves down the most during the preceding rut. I would hope that young, up and coming, in the prime of their youth bucks would not be the majority in the winterkill numbers, but in my area they seem to be. Of course I can’t tell you how many of their deaths originated from hunting wounds, but I am sure that may take a lot of them. Even so, winterkill will happen, but IF it can be limited in fawns to an extent by providing them with an early start that better prepares them for winter then I like that scenario. Same thing with higher buck numbers in general, which reduces stress of the longer rut on lessens the work load on the bucks present. In many cases this stress is heavily on the younger bucks because that is the majority of what we have. I'd like to see method used to limit winterkill in these categories, for sure. But I realize that it is very unlikely NY will implement AR to help this cause. Land carrying capacity is another issue. One also dealt with by better measures than AR.

Here's the problem I have with that train of thought, Though you say you believe there are better ways.... you support a state wide LEGISLATION. The DEC was addressing this and JUST started the " let them walk" program. Now I'm sorry, some may think just one season..ONE season wasn't enough to make a difference for them. Do not expect others to think MANDATORY LEGISLATION is the answer either. Now I have to say to your train of thought. There comes a time when any people stating that for the HEALTH of any animal population, legislation is the answer to try to superseded Mother Natures, natural ebb and flow, are stating a fallacy. Yes you can legislate human interactions with wild life...but never what Mother nature will do on her own.It is purely a flawed argument. Keeping humans from shooting specific deer in specific areas to "better" the herd has more than once been shown as a failure...Don't believe me, ask some of the other guys on this forum that have lived through the DEC doe management "issues" , when mother nature came in on their tails and took out what ever she wanted. There are still units trying to recover from that. I am not going to assume % or numbers in your unit nor any other units I'm not familiar with. I will though say guys in there little suits sitting behind their big desks in Albany have no business doing so either. Some clarifications for you…if I could. 1. I am not sure that I ever said that I fully support Mandatory Antler Restrictions. 2. I did say that I see a potential benefit from them. 3. I did admit that the selfish hunter in me would like them but I do not think I have advocated pushing them on you or anyone else. 4. I did not say that that my ideals are more important than someone’s right taken away of choosing what they should shoot. 5. I did say that I don’t think we look at this topic through the eyes of mother nature or the deer’s best needs. I would disagree with your assumption that mother nature controls all of the subject matter we have been discussing. If she did she’d just start dropping bucks from the sky to even out the buck to doe ratio a bit. Would it be absolutely necessary? No, but optimal, in her eyes likely. Now the idea of bucks raining down on us is awesome, but a fallacy IMO. To say that scientific evidence provided in this thread, or elsewhere, that affects that ratio and age structure is a fallacy, or nonsense as you suggested, is a bit shortsighted I think. I’ll readily concede that your points are accurate if you direct them at deer numbers vs. habitat. But we are talking about different things than that. Mother nature cannot simply stop us from shooting the majority of younger bucks, but hunters and those that regulate them can. If mother nature starts popping out 3 to 4 buck fawns for every doe fawn, then I will change my tune and agree with you. Until then, we are having an effect through our harvest trends and mother nature is not going to address this unless we shoot way more than we already do. If that happens we would be in potential trouble with reproduction rates, unless she starts allowing females to reproduce asexually. I am sorry, but like it or not we as hunters can effect things that mother nature might prefer that we don't. Just how important those impacts are, and how detrimental they can be, is the question that the DEC needs to answer, and their opinion has been shown in their actions I would say. Doesn't mean it is wrong for someone to wish it was more important to them, even if mother nature isn't acting aggressively to address it either.

I give up.

Man, can't believe I am saying this but as I get older I have to say ladders. They just feel safer. I never thought I would get old, and 46 isn't old, but I am slowing down and safety has become more important. While saying that, if you send me to a hang-on stand with a life line in it I am just as happy to get into that one. For whatever reason, I just don't have the bravado and carefree attitude I guess anymore, and I like to feel safe getting in and out of the tree now days. Due to the fact that I bowhunt 99% of the time I go in the woods, I typically can get better hidden in hang-on stands, so I would probably choose that one if both are safe getting in and out. Life lines are awesome. If you do not use them I highly suggest it. I might call them a "lifesaver".

Growalot – just read what you just posted, kind of case in point. I am fairly certain that you just called me a liar, saying I am hiding behind something such as science, so as to not show my true intentions. You completely disregarded any opinion I might have and said it was untrue, yet you accuse me of not looking past your computer to know what your intentions are. Yes, my opinions are different than yours. We both can point to science, possibly. Regardless of what you think, you might need to consider that there might POSSIBLY be people who would like to see our deer in the best natural shape they could take as a herd. Yes, it may benefit me and gosh it could benefit you as well. But maybe, JUST MAYBE there could be some who don’t have a hidden agenda past that simple fact. You just told everyone that is not possible and that people like me need to be exposed for who we are, hence your agenda to do just that. Due to this I now refer back to my sarcastic post that you seem to like to belittle those who do not share your opinions. I’d prefer to debate back and forth, and not jump to calling you a liar just because you see things differently through your eyes, or through your computer. FTR, I will help you with some research on my posts… Culvercreek Hunt Club called me on the carpet about five pages ago for using the word “stupid”. Oops, he was right, poor choice or words. I make mistakes all the time. You bet I displayed sarcasm in my post with the picture, and I don’t know what you meant by LOL, but I appreciated that you could see a little humor in it. That is why I commented accordingly. Believe it or not, even though you just called me a liar, I will survive and try not to be overly concerned or effected by your "diss" as you called it. We both are passionate about our ideas, just don't think we need to delve too much in to condescension and calling people liars for the points they defend. Probably should send this via private message and save everyone the drama.

Yes, Jefferson County, and No to your other statement. Please read my post again. I mentioned that this effects different areas differently, and addressed % not being an overly important factor. I stated any measure of better is better than not addressing the issue. I concurred that AR was not the best solution to this issue. Pretty sure I stated all of that in my response. Although he did not clarify, I think Phade was alluding to the fact that there are better ways to address this and I agreed. He also mentioned that there are more pressing issues in need of addressing as well. I have no idea what he might be thinking, but I probably might agree with him on that as well. I was simply stating that if this is something that might be plausible, and it indirectly - but positively addresses starvation and winter kill, then I see a benefit. If the DEC sees hunter satisfaction as more important than this issue, then that is the choice they have made.

I certainly agree that there are better ways to deal with it, but I think sometimes we don’t look at the end result of what we are discussing. I think much of this comes down to winter kill, and especially starvation. If we can do something to minimize starvation in fawns that are under developed due to late birthdays, or spread the stress of the rut on more bucks, we automatically reduce the probability of putting many deer through winters they won’t likely make it through. We can look at percentages in an attempt to determine just how bad this is – and it differs for sure in different areas. Still, and improvement on this number is and improvement, and there is a value on that even in small numbers. Watching fawns bed in the same spots in fields I drive by for a couple days sucks. They are simply starving and it doesn’t take long till the coyotes realize this. I like the idea of limiting this scenario, even if I can't predict just how many deer it might save each year. Sure, we can say that nature is rough sometimes, we can suggest that increased competition amongst bucks leads to injuries, and one might suggest that more deer alive means less to eat = more starvation anyways. But most of this topic seems to center on if there will be more bucks to harvest and if they will have bigger antlers. I say if it is something that might lead to less winter kill, then I see that as a good enough reason to do whatever we can to address this “health benefit”. I think that we might have a tougher time addressing bag limits and season changes, due to the fact that there isn’t as much visible “gold at the end of the rainbow” like many see with bigger antlers with AR. I have a tough time seeing as many people lobbying for something that might benefit our deer if it came down to shortening seasons or eliminating a buck tag. So I guess AR might be the best option to produce a potential reduction in the issues I mentioned above. When I find winterkill up my way it rarely appears to be an adult sized doe. I see lots of fawns, and most of the bucks are the year-old variety. Coincidence? Maybe, but I don’t think so. I think it is more of a product of the age structure in our deer herd.

Ha, that is funny. Just please give me a day or two's notice so that I can write my acceptance speech. I'm jut happy I got a LOL out of Growalot !!!!

I am wondering if anyone can tell me how NY decided to place the dividing line between the Northern and Southern Tiers where they are currently. Was it basically a straight (kind of) line that just gave it a northern half and a southern half? I grew up hunting in the southern tier, then went to college and lived out of state for 15 years or so (Pennsylvania), then moved to the northern tier (Jefferson County) for the past 12 years. Growing up I would hear about the big woods experience when hunting in the northern portion of the state. I loved reading about hunters who would hop on a track and hunt down the bucks that they would shoot. Most articles would talk about the fact that deer sightings were far and few between, but it was a very rewarding challenge of tracking down a buck. If I remember correctly does where off limits for the most part in the northern tier, as there was a need to protect them for procreation. I always thought that the short bow season and much longer gun season in the NT was due to the lower deer density, terrain features, and lack of agriculture. However, where I hunt and live in Jefferson County (6G), this is not the case. I didn’t realize is that there is a large portion of the northern tier that is geographically very similar to what I would say most of the southern tier is. I would say that typically we have as many deer in 6G as there are in many portions of the southern tier, and due to doe permit allocations here it appears that the DEC thinks this as well. Move over a bit in some areas of 6K and there were still good numbers of deer to be seen, but once the snow came it was amazing to see so many more deer that seemed to migrate east toward the lake from the west. I have heard it suggested that due to this migration potential the doe tag #s are kept lower so that a large number of these migrating deer are not harvested when they move toward wintering areas that have more food available and milder weather (less snow). So I am curious as to why this western portion along the lake (or maybe other areas which I am less familiar with that are north of the magical line I am referring to), which has a high proportion of agriculture and high deer density, is managed the same way as the Adirondacks are for weapons and length of seasons. Do we need an 8-week gun season to manage the deer herd in this area if it is strikingly similar to the southern tier? When hunting during bow season the woods are just a different place for the deer. There is a noticeable difference IMO between the way deer act during bow season and gun season. To say they are stressed differently is an understatement, again IMO. While I still enjoy hunting them during the gun season in the southern tier and PA, I always was glad it was a short two to three-week period, as they seemed so skittish and almost scared of everything during the gun season. Now, in the northern tier, I watch them act like this for two months instead of two weeks. Seems like a lot of stress for a long period of time. It certainly isn’t a typical way of managing deer with similar numbers and similar habitat when compared to neighboring states, or even most states across the country. So if the state manages different WMUs based on deer numbers, human populations (weapon limitations), etc., why does NY include this area of the state along the lake with the prolonged northern gun season? Does it take us northern tier hunters 8 weeks to fill our tags in this area? Or is it just simply due to a tradition that the DEC doesn’t want to disrupt? Curious to hear why you think the line is where it is, and if the longer gun seasons where put in for obvious reasons in the Adirondacks, then why they do keep them in place when the challenge to harvest a deer in areas like 6G doesn’t provide nearly the difficulty.

While I am not entirely sure why you posted your “game” on this thread, I would assume that you did it for one of the following reasons: 1. You wanted to impress everyone with your ability to age deer. 2. You wanted to point out that many others are not as proficient at aging deer as you are. 3. You wanted to prove that many aren’t able to discern the age of a deer on the hoof. So, I have to assume that you feel judging age is an important factor either to you personally, or it actually plays a positive role in herd management IF DONE CORRECTLY. If that is the case, then through your “observations” you clearly point out that AR is in fact a clear benefit. I agree, it is easier to count points on an antler then judge the age of an antlerless deer regardless of its gender. So if AR might help save a large majority of the younger deer, then you are correct, AR is better than asking hunters to judge them on the hoof. If you are suggesting that judging whether or not the average hunter should shoot this “buck”, as you call it, in March or not, then there are some other more serious issues at play I would think. You stated that many avoided your post and didn’t want to “play”. Yup, I’d agree…here is how I saw your post: I think it is only fair that you should have put out some disclaimers, such as: - Anything you say can and will be held against you in the court of Growalot. - Growalot retains the right to deny anything written in his/her post, regardless if it was actually typed there or not (please see the reference to my Kindle being responsible for any errors) - All responses will be sarcastic and condescending, unless I agree with you - While opinions expressed in this poll may not be provable as right or wrong, please note that it is my post so I am always correct, and therefore you may always be wrong Now, if you had put those disclaimers up and prepared me for what I would have received regardless of what I submitted as my opinion, I might have been more willing to “play”. I would have understood your rules.

Grampy, I guess that I see the reasoning for AR as different than just the “quality” of bucks or the “quality” of the hunting. As a hunter I would selfishly like to see AR. But the key word is selfishly. I agree with you that my motivation would be selfish if I wanted to forcibly control what my neighbors could shoot just so that I could shoot bigger bucks. Likewise, their opposition might be selfish in origin as well, because they would like the choice to shoot what they want rather than be told what is OK. For this reason I see very easily why you might oppose AR, and I cannot come up with a reason to argue when we talk about our selfish desires as hunters. You may or may not believe me when I say that my opinions on this are not selfish in nature, and I do see that it might sound funny that I might want what to optimize our buck to doe numbers for “herd health”. I also readily admit that there are advantages to this ratio that could directly effect my quality of hunting in a way that I perceive to be an improvement. That is undeniable, and it certainly can be viewed as a determent to others freedom to choose. I can’t argue that, and nothing I can say would likely convince anyone that my desire to see a more natural and diverse age to our bucks, and to our ratio of bucks to does, might simply fall in line to produce a more natural deer herd that is not as easily influenced by the impact we as hunters place on it. These suggestions/proposals/legislative actions would ultimately improve my personal hunting, and I understand that makes me guilty in most people’s eyes as selfishly supporting any legislation that might benefit my experiences in the woods. I have hunted in only four other states for whitetail. I see the difference in a more stable and positive buck to doe ratio. It certainly effects the hunting, and not just when considering antler size. You can continually argue that this topic might be driven by those who want to shoot bigger bucks, and I AGREE that you are likely correct. No argument for me on that. I just would love to do something that optimizes our deer herd in a fashion similar to the article a page or two back, which pretty much mirrors my thoughts in a post I made about how AR would benefit our deer a few pages in this thread before that – not just the benefits it provides our hunters. However, I cannot escape that the possibility of legislation is not being viewed through the eyes of the biologist or what is best for the whitetail deer, but it has come down to how it effects the right of the hunters. I naively wish we could set it aside and do what might be best for the deer. However, as you point out very well, most only see what they want their hunting experience to be as the determining factor of what changes might be important to the deer herd. To answer your question better, I guess that I'd be willing to lose choice and even bag limits if it was good for the deer I hunt. I would hope that others would feel the same, but that doesn't seem to be a focus of what we discuss. It only seem to be based on the hunter's satisfaction, regardless of what might be better for the deer. Final example: After two rough winters our deer numbers were down in my area for a few years IMO. I chose not to shoot any does during that season after I realized how few deer sightings we had. Our neighbors complained big time as well, everyone was concerned. My response was not to shoot any does even though we seemed to be attracting a lot of does into our brassica plots in the late seasons. Our neighboring properties handled it differently. The just put deer drives on and killed the few does they could find. I felt I needed to do something better for the deer in our area, AND YES it certainly had an effect and likely improved my hunting in the next season or two. Our neighbors were not as concerned about the deer numbers, but instead just in their opportunity to kill the deer that season. Two different ways of looking at it, and two different ways of handling it. Didn't mean that I didn't want to shoot a few deer those two seasons, just meant that I wanted to do something to benefit our deer herd. For the record, neither method was illegal. Just different points of view.

Understood, and I think you present good thoughts throughout. I don’t see any way to be sure of what the deer herd looks like throughout the state an any given time, but at some point we need to generalize this and make decisions that might not be absolutely vital – as deer will likely not be eradicated or become an endangered species – but if we can improve and enhance the herd throughout the majority of NY that is also something to be considered. If you can advocate “education” as a benefit, then I would think you can see some benefits already to what AR might produce – even though I understand you don’t want it legislated upon you. I really hope you are correct that this “educating” will be effective, but it hasn’t in my area. That goes back to my observation vs. the rest of the state, and if it is different elsewhere then I say great. I hope it works! We talk to all of our neighbors about the idea of letting bucks go. On all four sides of our 300 acres each of them says they are excited about it and agree. Yet each year they all harvest young bucks, to a hunter we think. We hear it every year…”we shot this little one cause it had a growth on it and was going to die”, “ we killed this one cause he had a weird rack and his genetics were bad”, “we killed this one cause it is late in the season season and didn’t want to waste a tag”. Add the fact that one side fills tags for all their friends and relatives, and another sees his property is a place to bring a lot of people for easy rifle hunts, then it seems to us that education on the issue has little to no effect. Each sees a reason to make exceptions to the idea, and each year they all accomplish the act of killing a good majority of our antlered deer, and each year we start off just like the year before. We no longer talk with them about it because what they say and what they do are completely different. You are correct though, it could be different near you. I advocate AR because like the “education” idea there is great merit behind it. AR just makes the benefits more realistic, while education seems to me to be unrealistic in ma neck of the woods – IF – there is truly a goal of changing our buck to do ratio.

Nope, I am completely for them. After living in a state for 15 years or so that put them in place during the time I resided there I am convinced they would have a positive outcome. That said…I cannot say it is the best resolution to some of the problems we have with our deer herd, but I feel that is a different topic than this one. All I am saying Buckmaster, is that you cannot have a rational debate with several people on this thread. There are a few who have said that while they see the merit in either the research or implementation, they do not support AR simply because it limits their ability to decide what they want to shoot. I understand and commend the honesty, and respect their right to voice it. While I may not agree with placing personal desire over what might be better in many ways for the whitetail deer, they prefer to keep a choice that has long been theirs, and want that choice to continue for others as well. However, reading some of these posts its quick to see how many others will completely refute things that are simple to understand. They have no idea what they are talking about, they just won’t accept anything that might provide rationale for AR or other changes. Even the DEC admits that there is completely good reasoning behind protecting the younger bucks in our herd, they just don’t have the balls to act on it and fear the kickback that would come from some hunters.

Have an educated discussion on this topic? Seriously? There are 20 pages here that should clearly tell you that an informed or “educated” conversation is not possible on this topic. Any scientific evidence breaks down purely along the sole opinion of whether someone might infringe on the right of someone to shoot what they want to. Science doesn’t matter. Other states efforts to maintain a healthier herd doesn’t matter. All that matters is the fact that some want to shoot whatever they want to regardless of what effect it has on the herd. Provide whatever science you want. Many don’t care. They will refute, without proof, twist it for their stance, it doesn’t matter. They simply don’t want to hear anything that might warrant a change to their right to shoot what they want. All they will do with any “science” or biology you provide is tell you that it can’t be true because it is being used only to support ARs. Why discuss this further. You can’t use reason. It doesn’t matter. Its just about the right to shoot what they want VS someone telling them that they can’t. That is it. The rest is useless. I really can’t tell you if the legislative action that is being proposed has the slightest bit of good intent as a reason for its implementation, or if those behind it only want BIG BUCKS. I can tell you it would have positive effects on the herd if implemented - but I can’t tell you if that is any driving force behind the proposal. To some, like me, its not the best alternative but it is a step in the right direction because its better than what we have going on right now. But if you think we can put logic to this topic for a discussion as a group, forget it. I see that now. You will never get past the fact that it is not about the deer, and what would be best for our deer herd. Its all about pulling the trigger. Likewise, you will never convince those on the opposite sidte that it is anything less than a means to have larger antlered deer for trophy hunters. An educated discussion plays no part here. If you don’t believe me, read the past 20 pages, it is all the proof you need.

Grow ... We are not splitting hairs here, instead you are changing the hair color altogether. You made a statement, then asked a question. I answered your question by clarifying what the author was saying. By reading your statement one is left to assume that either you misunderstood his reasoning, or you where misrepresenting it in your post. I personally do not believe that “misunderstanding” and “misrepresenting” are synonyms, in case you decide to suggest we are both saying the same thing once again.

I see where the author stated that it was not good for the majority of the breeding to fall on the young bucks, which currently make up the majority of the bucks in our NY herd, and those bucks are not the most capable of handling all of the breeding and the subsequent wear and toll it takes on them prior to winter. I don’t see where he stated it was bad for them to breed in general. His main point was that the ratio is off and that NY needs more bucks alive to do the job in a more timely and efficient manner. I don’t see how it is hard to imagine that if we provide more young bucks a pass to the next year of life we will achieve more bucks than we have typically started the rut off with. When you add age, size, experience to the equation the following year, then our herd is provided with some advantages to both improve our age structure and our overall buck numbers. I believe that the author stressed a value on both sheer buck numbers and older deer to aid in the breeding. Its not hard to derive the fact that higher numbers of bucks will equal more older bucks.

Sorry, know that sounded like I was being critical. You are well within your right to fill both of the those tags for sure. Heck, I miss the days around here when I felt if I didn't fill all my doe tags it wasn't a successful year. For a few years now I've felt like I had to hold off from filling those tags even though they are in my pocket. Look forward to seeing 15-20 deer a hunt again someday, hopefully. That was always fun and I think I almost get just as excited about shooting does with my bow as I do about bucks.

Cannot disagree with any of your thoughts. If it came down to it, and if in my dream world we could choose between AR and a one buck tag rule, I’d take the one buck tag change personally. I guess I realize that none of the issues with either reported harvests or “bonus” buck tags are completely avoidable or solvable. However, I’d love to see a way of making it more difficult to take advantage of by those who choose to play by their own rules. If AR made multiple buck tags harder to fill, or half of the tags available were gone based on the single buck rule, at least it is plausible to think that abuse as it happens in some areas might be a bit riskier. Add to this that I’d like to think that the majority of our hunters are very ethical, then the one buck tag would likely limit the number of bucks taken overall. But when someone says that they don’t think they have had a successful season without filling both buck tags (and there is nothing wrong with that due to the fact that is perfectly legal in NY right now), I am quite sure that many would not go for that change.

Yup. Think I'd go with the repeating theory...

I think I mentioned that AR would not solve those issues, probably twice in that post. We have 300 acres which we manage for bow hunting. 10 acres of food plots, probably 80 acres of sanctuary that doesn’t get touched unless we blood trail a deer into it. We also have a good bit of swamp that makes me question how the deer even use it (but believe me they do). I am not telling you I am a super hunter, or a know-it-all, but I am pretty sure that we do a good job managing our property for our bow hunting needs. I will gladly read you suggestions, and I understand you think that we may be not hunting it correctly. I am just saying that it is hard to be sure what others experience by only using your own personal observations to determine what they are seeing. It is just possible that we are accurate in understanding what the current potential is in our area. As I have said many times here, I think that there are much better solutions to handling the issue that AR would be put in to address, and those would better solve our issues here with our neighbors to some extent as well. Those changes are less likely to occur than AR. I don’t have to go back very far or look to other hunters to find good success on our property. I killed a 140” just about five years ago, and we had pictures of one bigger and saw another one comparable a well during that same season. I expect that we had that success in large part because were doing just what you are now doing. We were waiting for the bigger ones, and we still are. However, what other hunters do around you impacts your own efforts sometimes. You can certainly suggest that our situation is not the norm, and I can show you another township near me that offers outstanding bucks because of how the area has really pushed for the QDM theory. I’d say that most of the state might fit comfortably in the middle and that most areas will certainly hold a few big bucks like you are suggesting. I just happen to be for increasing the potential of buck numbers in the state, even if my hunting spot was fantastic by those standards already.

Agreed. I bow hunt during the entire season here in the Northern Tier. Guns are blazing, and I still am crazy enough to hang the bow in the tree with me. This also means that I stick to heavy cover for several reasons. That is where I see the deer, and to your point, not in the open fields or hardwoods. Add the fact the majority of my hunting season sees them rather skittish due to both the guns and the fact that gun hunting allows for a good bit more of human movement (still hunting) and deer drives, then heavier security cover is where I spend my time in. Have to say, the thing that has cost me the most opportunity to harvest older bucks is the weapon I choose to take with me. That is A HUGE reason that I don't hunt open areas. I hate sitting there watching nice bucks walk by at 100 yards with my bow in my hand. When it is a big one that I am really excited about harvesting, and I see him walking in the wide open, it makes me wonder what I am doing. Guess I just love to bow hunt, and I have come to realize that limits my potential to shoot bigger bucks up here in the northern tier. While this is 100% my choice, I still can't help wishing we could do more to increase the number of older bucks in my herd. but that is just my opinion.

His post stated that they used cameras to select the top three or four bucks to target. It is in the second paragraph. It certainly varies area to area for sure. We have had seasons where we had we had four to five bucks that appeared to be three years old or better on our property. Since the hard winters (two in a row) we had a couple years back, we have had just one of those in each of the last two seasons. I personally think that has a lot to do with our new neighbors who like helping their friends and families by filling all their buck tags for them as well. Hearing them brag to others about the 6 bucks that one of them killed in a year is hard to hear, and if true, hard to compete with. I hope that is not the norm, and I don’t bring it up to hear than AR won’t solve poaching and that I should call the DEC. Point is, not all areas of NY are blessed with mature bucks in abundance, and in some instances, they might be a rarity. Some areas might see low numbers of older bucks even with completely compliant and legal buck harvest (please don’t see my suggestion that poaching is a major problem everywhere), if the hunting pressure is pretty good. Just don’t like being told that I may not be harvesting older bucks due to my hunting ability or tactics because they are out there and I just can’t find them. I run 7-8 cameras for 8 months a year on our food plots and lots of other good habitat. Some years we just don’t have many older bucks to choose from, and where I choose to sit and watch for them on our property isn’t going to change that. Years like last year our best chance was hoping for a buck form outside our property to come through looking for does.

I agree with what you are saying, but I think it depends a bit on the approach you utilize and the method of hunting you choose. My mention about keeping the best stands I have fresh for the right time really helps if applied in the following ways: 1. I save the best stands for the rut that are closest to bedding areas or high travel corridors between bedding. These are not stands that I want to use for doe harvest or near food sources. These might be closer to sanctuary areas on private property. Might be much harder to do this on public land as in my experience a lot of deer sign attracts hunters regardless of what that area the deer use the area for. 2. This is more important for a stand hunter, but not someone who likes to get on the ground to stalk or still hunt like I think your example from the video might demonstrate. I probably am better suited to make suggestions to stand hunting, as I am largely a bow hunter. Still, I completely agree with your suggestion of being fluid, as I have killed more good bucks as a result of observation, and then moving stands based on what I see, than keeping out of a stand until the rut like I suggested above. I just think keeping a stand extremely fresh is an underused tactic, and almost always provides some of my best and most exciting hunts of the year when I finally decide to dive in and use those stands. If you enjoy reading, watching, or absorbing deer hunting videos, and knowledge, I suggest checking out Bill Winke’s “Midwest Whitetail”. Personally, I think he’s the best out there, bar none. He took his award-winning show off the cable TV stations and went to an internet based platform that is widely popular. Not sure if there are many others out there who have a following like he does, so I know this isn't a well kept secret. As it applies to your scenario, I like how this past year they set up an entire video blog about a group of three or four guys who hunted solely on public land. Granted, that is based in Iowa, but it addresses how to hunt more pressured deer and adjust to other hunters as well. These video logs show just about everything from summer scouting, stand selection, trail cameras, hunting, shed hunting after the season, and scouting for other hunter’s habits as well. Think there is some good stuff in there for other public land hunters. Add to this that the majority of this content shows up on their site just hours to days right after it happens, it is almost like live reality TV. Good stuff, and there are years and years of archives.

So if I put my cameras out like you do and I don't get pictures of the bucks that you speak of, does your theory about learning how to hunt still work? Or do I just not know where to put my cameras?

I completely agree that ratios have more of an effect on herd health than the other topic that keeps being argued, antler size. I see antler size as a byproduct of sheer numbers which can occur in an improved ratios of buck to does. If a large majority of 1.5 old bucks were provided a pass for a year, the age structure jumps up by a year right away in most vicinities. I’d have a hard time guessing how many more 3’s, 4’s or 5’s would be added in the years after, but it is not a stretch to assume that it would happen. In a state that allows two bucks per hunter and has a lengthy gun season, those possibilities would be harder to accomplish than in many other states. While I think that buck to doe ratios would be the positive outcome of AR, I do think that there are more effective ways to accomplish this such as changes to bag limits and season length. As those options are likely less to be changed, I guess I see AR as a benefit to the ratio issue that I see where I hunt in several parts of NY. I really hadn’t thought about your last point till I read it. It is a good point. Just how much would the DEC care about improving the health of the herd IF IT might actually increase the overall numbers they are hoping to diminish. In their eyes, it may not be great to improve the herd to further a bigger problem that they see. I now see AR as even more unlikely to every be added.