The Expanded Antler Restrictions - Who is excited?

[Meat Hunter]

I do not know how many people were surveyed by the DEC and Cornell but I do know how they took the cross section of folks to do the survey on and it was appropriate and statically valid. As for the NYS Conservation Council I do not know how they picked the people to survey but when you have sportsmen themselves, Cornell and DEC all coming up with similar numbers doing different surveys it lends a lot of creditably.

Sounds like some antis would not believe the support it no matter what it was. There are a bunch of other sportsmen’s surveys out there that show even higher support as well.

I know since I am in an AR area that people have gone from rabidly anti to in favor and supportive of ARs. I can not say that will happen to you for sure but I know how much my hunting improved and find it hard to believe that someone will be mad when they are seeing more larger and older bucks and harvesting the same.

Let face it everyone would chose to harvest the bigger buck if they had a choice. It is just tradition and experience in NY that confuses the issue.

I am very interested to see if those in opposition on this board change there tune once area are in place for a couple years in their hunter area.

Doewacker- how long have you been on the site- you have a lot of posts!

[Doc]

Whenever I hear that story about the majority of hunters wanting AR, I have to wonder why we even need it. And then I have to wonder why such a large percentage of yearling bucks still get harvested. One might think that either the surveys are flawed, bogus or manipulated, or that these supposed supporters of AR are more in love with the theory than the practice and don't put their actions where their mouth is, or that they are so weak willed that they need a state law to control their urges and force them to live up to what they are saying. And by the way, that thought also assumes that there are no hunters among the supposed minority that are opposed to AR that is not already using selective criteria in their harvests. That likely is not the case. So some rather large part of this so-called 67% of supporters simply are not walking the talk. Most likely it is people who think AR talk sounds good in front of their hunting buddies but in actual practice, don't believe it for a moment.

Anybody ever come up with a justification of that contradiction? It's just a little nit, but I need an explanation.

[Doewhacker]

Doc I would have clicked a love that button but there ain't one...perfect!

[Skillet]

Of course you don't believe it.. because you don't want to.. you don't even know enough about it to make an educated decision... all you know is that you don't like the DEC telling you what to do... although they have been telling you what to do since you started hunting... they have already been telling you for years when you can take deer, where you can take deer, how many you can take, with what weapon you can take them with, etc. etc. Before any of these rules came into existence people with your thought process nearly eradicated the entire population of whitetails in NYS. I'm sure that's another thing you didn't know.

All he is saying is that there are hunters that should give it a good look before jumping the gun... Have you ever hunted in an AR area for any length of time? Have you taken any time to look at AR's and how they have worked all across the country? Is it that you just don't want to believe the hunters on here that have told you how it is working in their area? What is it about AR's that you don't like?

Of course DEC tells us what to do. For as long as any of us here have hunted, there has been control over methods, seasons, and limits. I'm not saying I want to kill deer all year long, or kill as many as I want. I'm saying that they are taking the control too far, when they start telling me what deer I can shoot, and what constitiutes a quality deer in their opinion. It's like any other branch of government extending their reach too far. It's enough, it's none of their business what I kill as long as I am harvesting sustainably. That's why I don't like AR's. There has to be a line in the sand somewhere. What's next Joe?. That's all i'm saying.

[Doewhacker]

"I do not know how many people were surveyed by the DEC and Cornell but I do know how they took the cross section of folks to do the survey on and it was appropriate and statically valid. As for the NYS Conservation Council I do not know how they picked the people to survey but when you have sportsmen themselves, Cornell and DEC all coming up with similar numbers doing different surveys it lends a lot of creditably."

The cornell survey done on behalf of the DEC that you love soooo much showed something to the effect of 327 people in favor of AR in those areas that already had them. The other survey means little to me as it was not done in the same fashion as the DEC/Cornell survey. So how confident are you that 327 people represent the majority of hunters state wide? Keeping in mind there are, what 600,000 plus hunters in NY.

If it were me I wouldn't tout majority rules based solely on 327 people.

"Doewacker- how long have you been on the site- you have a lot of posts!"

I don't know, maybe two years or so?

[nyantler]

Whenever I hear that story about the majority of hunters wanting AR, I have to wonder why we even need it. And then I have to wonder why such a large percentage of yearling bucks still get harvested. One might think that either the surveys are flawed, bogus or manipulated, or that these supposed supporters of AR are more in love with the theory than the practice and don't put their actions where their mouth is, or that they are so weak willed that they need a state law to control their urges and force them to live up to what they are saying. And by the way, that thought also assumes that there are no hunters among the supposed minority that are opposed to AR that is not already using selective criteria in their harvests. That likely is not the case. So some rather large part of this so-called 67% of supporters simply are not walking the talk. Most likely it is people who think AR talk sounds good in front of their hunting buddies but in actual practice, don't believe it for a moment.

Anybody ever come up with a justification of that contradiction? It's just a little nit, but I need an explanation.

That's a great point... if everyone is for it .. why do we need to mandate it? Maybe because those 67% are the hunters that don't kill a buck each year and think AR's will solve that problem...lol...

I still don't understand the opposing something that you already practice... maybe opposed to the mandate but not the concept. Then there are some that oppose statewide mandate of AR's, but are okay with testing the water like they have in some WMU's. I thinking that if they weren't being well recieved in those areas they would have been dropped.

[SteveB]

Whenever I hear that story about the majority of hunters wanting AR, I have to wonder why we even need it. And then I have to wonder why such a large percentage of yearling bucks still get harvested. One might think that either the surveys are flawed, bogus or manipulated, or that these supposed supporters of AR are more in love with the theory than the practice and don't put their actions where their mouth is, or that they are so weak willed that they need a state law to control their urges and force them to live up to what they are saying. And by the way, that thought also assumes that there are no hunters among the supposed minority that are opposed to AR that is not already using selective criteria in their harvests. That likely is not the case. So some rather large part of this so-called 67% of supporters simply are not walking the talk. Most likely it is people who think AR talk sounds good in front of their hunting buddies but in actual practice, don't believe it for a moment.

Anybody ever come up with a justification of that contradiction? It's just a little nit, but I need an explanation.

Great post Doc - very points I've raised literally dozens of times without a single counter that makes logical sense.

Amazing how the alleged small minority opposed to AR's can continually kill the alleged high % of 1.5's year in and year out. Only 2 possible reasons:

1 - the poll numbers are way off.

2 - the supporters can't be bothered to walk the talk.

Edited August 11, 2012 by SteveB

[burmjohn]

Of course DEC tells us what to do. For as long as any of us here have hunted, there has been control over methods, seasons, and limits. I'm not saying I want to kill deer all year long, or kill as many as I want. I'm saying that they are taking the control too far, when they start telling me what deer I can shoot, and what constitiutes a quality deer in their opinion. It's like any other branch of government extending their reach too far. It's enough, it's none of their business what I kill as long as I am harvesting sustainably. That's why I don't like AR's. There has to be a line in the sand somewhere. What's next Joe?. That's all i'm saying.

They already tell you what deer you can shoot.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

[Fairgame]

I'm surprised nobody has told us AR guys that we are going to produce 10 year old spikes we can't shoot and they are going to breed all the does and ruin the genetics of or deer herd. LOL!!

[burmjohn]

Great post Doc - very points I've raised literally dozens of times without a single counter that makes logical sense.

Amazing how the alleged small minority opposed to AR's can continually kill the alleged high % of 1.5's year in and year out. Only 2 possible reasons:

1 - the poll numbers are way off.

2 - the supporters can't be bothered to walk the talk.

On my tablet, ill keep this brief. When there are no other options people took what they could get. Now there are options, trail cameras catching some monsters , friend and family harvesting bigger deer, that just did not exist 6 years ago. Now that hunters know what's out there and the potential of harvesting a mature or more mature buck exists, it creates excitement and one becomes more selective. I've come across many hunters old and new who were both for and against AR and now knowing what is out there has them convinced it works and renews their passion. I've heard the excuses in the past, ah if I don't shoot it, its hanging in my neighbors garage the next day, etc etc. So to answer your question, I'll guess I'll be the first, many more then likely did not "walk the talk". And those that were not supporters and or were the ones that did not "walk the talk" are now because they see we can have some pretty awesome mature deer in this state / this part of the state as well.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

[Skillet]

They already tell you what deer you can shoot.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

No, they tell us how many deer, and of which gender they can be.

[Buckstopshere]

Erussell, I couldn't agree more. And those guys who shoot those spikes and forks are stoked and the deer hunters of the future, as it should be. When the guys on the hill tag out, I'm a happy guy and when I shake their hand in congratulations for their deer, there is a part of me that knows, their season is complete and they are out of the woods. There is part of me that feels it is a bit selfish to feel that way, but I am honestly happy for them and like to share in their victory of filling their buck tag.

[burmjohn]

No, they tell us how many deer, and of which gender they can be.

Yes they do, check the rule book, its nothing new.

[Ford]

I was pretty much on the fence with AR's. Maybe even slanted the other way. Now not so much.

I think most of the problem is with the different habitats/hunting pressure in the WMU's. The area I hunt is totally different from 2 miles down the road.

I was on the fence, but now think it is a good idea, after reading this thread, and some research.

I can only talk about my area, but I believe after the first year, even the "meat hunters" (hate that cause it is me too) would have ample oportunity..

[burmjohn]

I was pretty much on the fence with AR's. Maybe even slanted the other way. Now not so much.

I think most of the problem is with the different habitats/hunting pressure in the WMU's. The area I hunt is totally different from 2 miles down the road.

I was on the fence, but now think it is a good idea, after reading this thread, and some research.

I can only talk about my area, but I believe after the first year, even the "meat hunters" (hate that cause it is me too) would have ample oportunity..

Yup, its true the first year there is a sharp decline in buck harvest, obviously because of the lack of more mature bucks to take. After that first year or two its a different story.

[Doc]

I still don't understand the opposing something that you already practice... maybe opposed to the mandate but not the concept. Then there are some that oppose statewide mandate of AR's, but are okay with testing the water like they have in some WMU's. I thinking that if they weren't being well recieved in those areas they would have been dropped.

I'm not sure I really belong in the camp of opposing ARs, but I definitely have reservations. I have heavy concerns that logic, study, and research will not be used when determining where ARs are appropriate. In other words, I hear mostly that people are in favor of broad-brush application of ARs across the state and I have no doubt that eventually that's the way it will wind up.

I have been arounddeer hunting, and deer hunters long enough to realize that not all deer populations are as thick as they are here in 8N. I also know from government publications that not all WMUs have antlerless permits issued in sufficient numbers to serve as alternatives to being forced to let the overwhelming bulk of the bucks walk by. Many issue no permits at all. I also am able to imagine myself put in the situations of those hunters that find themselves with no permits and then told that pretty much all the bucks that walk by are going to be illegal to harvest. Now I am not really in a position to be throwing away good license money and then being told that I am not eligible for a harvest, and I suppose I am not alone on that. So what I am seeing is the possibility of inappropriate AR mandates in certain WMUs that wind up frustrating even more hunters out of the activity. It's obvious that we don't really need more regs that do that. You want to implement ARs in our WMU? .... fine. We are almost always guaranteed to have permits issued (sometimes in bunches...lol). I doubt that I will ever find myself in the position of some of the other WMUs where hunters may wind up sitting in the woods realizing that nothing is going to walk by that they have the legal right to shoot. But if the day ever were to come that I faced the prospect of going into the woods with no reasonable possibility of success, that would be the day when I would spend my license money on something else. I can go sit in the woods anytime without paying money to do it.

[nyantler]

Yeah I think you're right about people being in favor of a broad brush application of AR's... I pretty much am of the same thought as you and for the same reasons. However, having witnessed time and time again how AR's have enhanced the hunting experience.. I don't see there coming a time when there won't be ample opportunity to harvest at least one deer in any area of NY... areas with limited habitat or deer density will always be tougher hunting... hence the need for some thought out decisions before the DEC adopts any management plans for any WMU.

I have always been of the belief that, in this day and age, lack of success for most hunters has more to do with hunting style and ability than populations and restrictive game laws. I will concede that the first few years of an AR program are usually a little lean for some hunters, especially in areas with low DMP's or lower deer density.

[nyantler]

Of course DEC tells us what to do. For as long as any of us here have hunted, there has been control over methods, seasons, and limits. I'm not saying I want to kill deer all year long, or kill as many as I want. I'm saying that they are taking the control too far, when they start telling me what deer I can shoot, and what constitiutes a quality deer in their opinion. It's like any other branch of government extending their reach too far. It's enough, it's none of their business what I kill as long as I am harvesting sustainably. That's why I don't like AR's. There has to be a line in the sand somewhere. What's next Joe?. That's all i'm saying.

There is no record that I see of DEC restricting harvest in NY... when I started hunting there was a 1 buck rule, and party permits for 1 doe... today you can take at least 2 bucks and in most DMU's at least 2 does and the season is nearly twice as long... and yes it IS their "business" to limit or alter harvest as they deem necessary. You only have the right to shoot what they say you can shoot... hunters in NY have never had it so good... so where is the problem?

[Doc]

Yeah I think you're right about people being in favor of a broad brush application of AR's... I pretty much am of the same thought as you and for the same reasons. However, having witnessed time and time again how AR's have enhanced the hunting experience.. I don't see there coming a time when there won't be ample opportunity to harvest at least one deer in any area of NY... areas with limited habitat or deer density will always be tougher hunting... hence the need for some thought out decisions before the DEC adopts any management plans for any WMU.

I have always been of the belief that, in this day and age, lack of success for most hunters has more to do with hunting style and ability than populations and restrictive game laws. I will concede that the first few years of an AR program are usually a little lean for some hunters, especially in areas with low DMP's or lower deer density.

I have noticed that there are about 20 WMUs that list their chances of getting a permit as "low" with several requiring preference points (another way of saying that you aren't going to get one .... lol). There's even a few that have no permits being allocated at all. Those permit allocations are not all that unusual and runs similar just about any year. We tend to take permits for granted when we hunt in some of the more higher deer populated areas, but obviously, there are quite a few areas that have things a whole lot worse than we do.

I also get the feeling from watching how some guys hunt and the lack of frequency of their participation that there may be an awful lot of hunters that are on the fence, vulnerable to that last straw to push them over the edge and out of hunting. Yes, I know we all think that if they are no more dedicated than that, who needs them. Well, for one, the DEC needs them to fund any of the nifty programs that we may support. Remember the importance of those license dollars. Also, I could be wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Pittman Robertson allocations to the state may be based on hunter numbers. Also, we are a faltering minority that still relies on staying relevant through numbers to maintain any influence at all. Politicians know only numbers. They do not know about levels of dedication to the sport. Anyway, everybody knows all that stuff and I think we can all understand that we can't afford to be passing laws that are likely to cost us hunters. So that is what my concern is based on. I'm not sure the DEC is up to the task of applying AR in a "smart" way.

[Meat Hunter]

I have noticed that there are about 20 WMUs that list their chances of getting a permit as "low" with several requiring preference points (another way of saying that you aren't going to get one .... lol). There's even a few that have no permits being allocated at all. Those permit allocations are not all that unusual and runs similar just about any year. We tend to take permits for granted when we hunt in some of the more higher deer populated areas, but obviously, there are quite a few areas that have things a whole lot worse than we do.

I also get the feeling from watching how some guys hunt and the lack of frequency of their participation that there may be an awful lot of hunters that are on the fence, vulnerable to that last straw to push them over the edge and out of hunting.

We can't afford to be passing laws that are likely to cost us hunters. So that is what my concern is based on. I'm not sure the DEC is up to the task of applying AR in a "smart" way.

Hunters number one satisfaction is see deer and seeing bucks. If hunters were only hunting to harvest a deer we would have no hunters as the vast majority of hunters do not harvest a buck each year. So where there are no doe tags because the population is below objective that is what has to be done to protect the resource. Hunters would still like to see and harvest more adult bucks that is what Yearling Buck Conservation does. Our tag system is selling a dream. Very few, ~15% harvest a buck, a tiny present harvest two bucks LEGALLY and a small hand full fill the 7 to 9 deer tags available to them.

Better buck hunting draws in hunters on the fence and otherwise. If people are seeing nice bucks before season they plan to be out hunting. If every one is saying not many bucks around, then fewer hunters head out. We need NY to provide the best buck hunting now so that our existing hunters spread the enthusiasm to those on the fence and new hunters as well. How many years in a row hunters happy killing a small spike? Seeing and harvesting a variety of adult bucks leads to hunter satisfaction and increased participation.

[Skillet]

Yes they do, check the rule book, its nothing new.

You must mean the minimum antler length to be tagged as a buck. They're not saying you can't shoot a tiny spike or a button, but if you do, you must use your antlerless tag. This is different, and no argument from anyone is going to change they way I see it, just like you will never see it my way. I'm over it, I know what I want, you know what you want. I also know what I will and will not tolerate from DEC.

[A Sportsman]

I definitely agree that it seems like more hunters are less willing to work as hard to get their deer. To me it seems like relying upon gadgetry has replaced the work end of it. For instance, 4 wheelers to get you and your deer in and out, and trail cameras let you know whats around without having to actually be there. I'm not saying i;m against hunters using those items, but in my mind, todays hunter is quite a bit different from my dad, uncles, etc. So I think todays hunter is more apt to embrace a "gadget" like ARs, in order to get their 8 ptr. Even though this sounds anti AR, if I hunted and area where there were so little decent bucks, I'd probably be for AR in that area. With respect to how I hunt, I hunt stateland in 3A without one ounce of "worry" about "who is shooting what". Some years, if the population is down cause of tough winter and the conditions stink (foggy all week long, or bad still hunting conditions), I have no problem shooting a spike, if I am good/lucky enough to see one. Other years, I've passed up 2 or 3 small bucks, holding off for a better one. Its my decision, and that freedom is worth something to me.

Deep into the woods of this WMU, ARs simply don't matter. These days, there just isnt enough hunters, or enough good hunters (or both) to really dent the population of small bucks. I think the huge drop in hunter recruitment has naturally been witnessed most significantly in the toughest areas to hunt.

[Meat Hunter]

"I do not know how many people were surveyed by the DEC and Cornell but I do know how they took the cross section of folks to do the survey on and it was appropriate and statically valid. As for the NYS Conservation Council I do not know how they picked the people to survey but when you have sportsmen themselves, Cornell and DEC all coming up with similar numbers doing different surveys it lends a lot of creditably."

The cornell survey done on behalf of the DEC that you love soooo much showed something to the effect of 327 people in favor of AR in those areas that already had them. The other survey means little to me as it was not done in the same fashion as the DEC/Cornell survey. So how confident are you that 327 people represent the majority of hunters state wide? Keeping in mind there are, what 600,000 plus hunters in NY.

If it were me I wouldn't tout majority rules based solely on 327 people.

"Doewacker- how long have you been on the site- you have a lot of posts!"

I don't know, maybe two years or so?

It is thousands for each statewide survey. I have no idea where you’re getting that number but it is not from the several statewide surveys that I am referencing. You know there is a science to surveys and they usually predict very closely what will happen in an election or how people feel on an issue. If anything I would say the DEC 2010 Survey understates the support. In that survey there is also a fair percentage that are neutral so would be fine with adopting the program. Support has absolutely grown over the last 10 years with everyone hearing about the success in NY and in other states.

[Meat Hunter]

Whenever I hear that story about the majority of hunters wanting AR, I have to wonder why we even need it. And then I have to wonder why such a large percentage of yearling bucks still get harvested. One might think that either the surveys are flawed, bogus or manipulated, or that these supposed supporters of AR are more in love with the theory than the practice and don't put their actions where their mouth is, or that they are so weak willed that they need a state law to control their urges and force them to live up to what they are saying. And by the way, that thought also assumes that there are no hunters among the supposed minority that are opposed to AR that is not already using selective criteria in their harvests. That likely is not the case. So some rather large part of this so-called 67% of supporters simply are not walking the talk. Most likely it is people who think AR talk sounds good in front of their hunting buddies but in actual practice, don't believe it for a moment.

Anybody ever come up with a justification of that contradiction? It's just a little nit, but I need an explanation.

Ok here goes the majority of hunters in NY and 67% in the recent expansion area ALL SUPPORT A REGULATION THAT ADOPTS MANDATORY ANTLER RESTRICTIONS to protect yearling bucks from harvest by adult hunters. They want the same rule for all. Hunters know that if they pass up a buck another hunter will shoot it. I have watched it happen to me and so have many/most other hunters. The proof that other hunters are not passing up young bucks is in the high yearling buck harvest. The DEC survey found 72% of hunters’ believed that if they pasted up a small buck voluntary that another hunter would kill it.

The thinking is that if a buck is going to a freezer it might as well be mine. Remember 85% of the hunters do not get a buck so your asking for a lot of people to past up the buck.

SO BOTTOM LINE IS THE MAJORITY OF HUNTERS WANT A REGULATION (LAW) THAT APPLES TO ALL ADULT HUNTERS AND THAT WE CAN ALL ABIDE BY TOGETHER.

It is kind of like fishing- once a fish hits the limit it goes in the cooler at least for most.

I am sure somewhere in the big woods or on some huge property you can let a buck go and it will make to the next year but in most of NY there are enough hunters and the bucks move sufficiently to result in the majority of yearling bucks being harvested.

[Doewhacker]

So you don't know how many surveys were sent out or recieved but you know its "thousands"...haha

If you totaled up all of those in favor in all of the surveys you might reach @2000 in all of the years and all of the surveys done. And the ones done specificaly in the current AR areas will only reach a few hundred supporters.

So please take your percentages and stick them. AR's are absolutely a social issue and nothing more, and that is 100% fact.

I do like the idea I read here that its the 85% of hunters that don't kill a buck that are in favor of AR's so maybe they can kill one....lol