Here's a fight starter

[Culvercreek hunt club]

So it comes down to people wanting to be able to shoot bigger horned animals easier.

 

And I should support that... why?

 

 

See the AR may be that to some but in a QDM plan it is about taking more mature deer. (which is a much bigger bodied deer)  and chasing a more educated and wary animal. The side benefit MAY be bigger antlers. For instance I have one target deer I reallllly want to take this year. he has one of the biggest bodies I have ever seen on a deer and I really think he is over 4.5 years old. There are 2 deer I know are 2.5 year olds That are very nice 10's that I would take with a bow but I really want that 7 with the gun. I have seen 4  8 pointers that are clearly 1.5's and they are small deer. 10-12" spreads and spindly. but very nice 1.5's I would love to see them make it through to see what they turn in to.

 

I love deer meat and a few of us guys pool our venison and make a crazy amount of sausage products and such. Those 3.5 year old deer doo fill up the freezer a lot faster..lol

[WesternNY]

And in fairness that number has been in decline.

 

YES because of Voluntary AR's that are greater than the 3pt min at debate

[steve863]

He is anti mandatory. I know that for a fact and he has gone a long way down the road to bring the effort for voluntary AR's through education.

 

 

OK, I will surely take your word for it.  He should then understand why others are very much against them.  If the state and others say their is no biological reasons for them, the case should be closed once and for all.  Saying that there are no biological reasons for them, and at the same time implementing them in even more areas of the state is as bizarre as it gets.  

[burmjohn]

Other than making it easier for guys to be able to more easily get a big rack, can someone please succinctly and unemotionally list the benefits of ARs to the deer herd, which is what this whole thing should be about.

 

I don't give a rats a** if it's easier for anyone to do anything or not. How does the herd benefit?

 

Since this has been answered on here a few times, quoting an old post by a few others who can explain it better then me.  But just to make it clear, most of those opposed keep focusing on the big rack factor / trophy crap / etc.  Bigger deer are a by product of a a properly balance herd.

 

 

The NY age structure is way out of whack. We have a disproportion number of young bucks with very few older deer. If you have ARs in place to protect the young bucks or at least some of them then you should get more yearlings surviving to maturity (or at least another level of it). 

The theory being that if you have a more balanced herd I.E. a 1:1 or 1:2 buck to doe ratio vs. what we have now 1:3,4,5,6,7,8 etc. etc. You wont have as many "teenagers" doing the breeding  and the majority of it will be done by older deer because the young bucks will have a harder time finding a doe that is not with a buck. 

The rut should also be better and when i say better i mean shorter and more intense. In theory you should also see more daytime movement. There isnt going to be a doe in estrous behind every tree or if there is there is a better chance she will already have a buck tending her so they will have to go looking more. Because the bucks will have a harder time finding does this should translate to more daytime movement. With more bucks to do the breeding the rut should condense because few does will "miss" getting bred the first time around. As it is now a doe can get completely missed the first or in some cases the second time. As it is now fawn drop is staggered in the spring over a couple of months. If you breed all the does at the same time you should get a more uniform fawn drop which should lead to a better survival rate because they will all be born earlier vs. later. That will give them an edge come fall. It should also cut down on the "second rut" when some of the yearling does come into estrous. Those too should be more condensed and more intense. 

 

NY has a very unbalanced buck age structure in most areas due to the amount of young bucks being killed.. which doesn't allow for a good age representation in each age group... To explain it better.. it would be like having a country where 85% of the population were teenagers and only 15% of males over the age of 18.. where possibly there are no males in their 60s or 70's. That would cause major social problems in the human world... it's no different in the whitetail world. Having a balanced age structure among the male population allows young males to grow and mature and reach their potential... as they reach their potential some bucks will become smarter and stronger than others based on gained experience and learned abilities to adapt to situations that younger bucks have not had time to learn or experience... as the herd evolves those bigger stronger bucks become dominant and pass their genetics on to the new offspring which will have a greater chance of developing into similar dominant bucks... just think what the world would be like if teenagers made all the decisions and started doing all the breeding at the age of puberty... It would be one screwed up world... 

 

[Geno C]

So maybe you guys who don't even see a 2.5 and rarely see anything with horns or anything decent for that matter, don't you think your area is in dire need of change!? Where all you see is spike horns and a 4 point, don't you think that can be changed? Wouldn't you want a change? I mean c'mon... Apparently you guys are meat hunters because your area generally doesn't have big deer but that doesn't have to be the case. If I was in an areaike that instead of sayin well this is my area and that's that, I would be thinking what could be done to bring deer numbers up and maybe some more deer over the 90" mark. Being in an area where guys shoot everything it's no wonder WHY the deer herd is taking a hit. It's common sence man. Who cares about age structure, I'm talking simple common sence, a deer gets passed, he makes it he gets bigger next year. And yes if I was in an area where deer populations were low I def would take a 1.5 old 6 rather a 1.5 old spike, wouldn't you??!

[WesternNY]

He is anti mandatory. I know that for a fact and he has gone a long way down the road to bring the effort for voluntary AR's through education.

 

 

That is a fact jack.   I have done so and will continue to do so, like I said before I cant stand the panic on the 3 pt min and I can not stand how much mis-information in public formats such as forums.

 

If I hear you guys right... the ones that hunt in bad areas of NY, if 3 Pt on one side passes you will not have harvest opportunities??

 

So all the 1.5 year old bucks are spikes and crotches?????

[Culvercreek hunt club]

The state record gun typical and gun non typical were both taken in 1939.....

There were some huge deer taken in NYS throughout history, way before anyone knew what an AR was. The deer still grew back then, obviously, but with no AR's.

They have always existed...but we want more of them now so we are trying methods to having huge bucks everywhere and anywhere.

Don't get me wrong, I love hunting and love the thought of a huge buck coming my way. I guess I just think AR's are not necessarily needed to experience that.

For the record, this is coming from a hunter that has not cracked 100" on a buck yet. Still trying.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 You can't even compare the NY of today with the Ny of 1939. Look at just the human population difference. The sprawl  is vastly different.

 

Anyone out there know the actual hunter numbers from back then?

[Geno C]

Culver let's be real... We can't get guys to pass small deer voluntarily but you want them to practice QDM? Really?

Here's where guys are getting lost, if you want something done or changed it has to be implemented. Not vary person to person on their own will. I'm all for QDM over ARs. But if you can't get guys to do either then WTH.

I hate hear the excuse well each area varies through out ny, yes it does, stop shooting every deer on sight and it doesn't have to be that way!

[WesternNY]

 You can't even compare the NY of today with the Ny of 1939. Look at just the human population difference. The sprawl  is vastly different.

 

Anyone out there know the actual hunter numbers from back then?

 

 

I am willing to bet, though don't know as fact that the deer population is better now than it was in 1939.

[steve863]

So maybe you guys who don't even see a 2.5 and rarely see anything with horns or anything decent for that matter, don't you think your area is in dire need of change!?

 

I have hunted 180 private acres with only one other guy for years now.  In the neighboring 300-400 acres there are maybe 4 other hunters hunting.  At best 3 or 4 bucks get taken out of this entire area in a year.  Even if those bucks taken were below AR minimums, how would AR's help this area??  Absolutely won't.  It's a mountainous region with hardly any agriculture on neighboring fields, so all the AR rules in the world won't make this place hold more or bigger deer than it could naturally sustain.

[burmjohn]

OK, I will surely take your word for it.  He should then understand why others are very much against them.  If the state and others say their is no biological reasons for them, the case should be closed once and for all.  Saying that there are no biological reasons for them, and at the same time implementing them in even more areas of the state is as bizarre as it gets.  

 

"No Biological Reason" does not mean having a normal / better age structure is not beneficial to the deer herd in these area's.   Go ahead and ask Hurst if AR's accomplished the DEC's interpretation of their intended goal,  he is going to say YES. And then if you ask him or any biologist if having a balanced age structure is important and beneficial to the deer herd, guess what he is going to say, YES. The deer herd's age structure in these area's are improving as a result of AR's. 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

 And yes if I was in an area where deer populations were low I def would take a 1.5 old 6 rather a 1.5 old spike, wouldn't you??!

But for me that is a big sticking point.  What is the difference really. a 1.5 is a 1.5 regardless of the headgrear. I understand the thought process behind it getting the majority through the year. But I wish when they talk about a program like this they could focus more on what the benefits of a 2.5 are rather than a deer with 3 points. Especially out by us Geno. The majority of bucks I see that are 1.5 could be taken under and AR.

 

You can be talking about a 40# bigger deer anyway, maybe more getting a 2.5 

[jjb4900]

I am willing to bet, though don't know as fact that the deer population is better now than it was in 1939.

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/histdeernewyork.pdf

this link provides some interesting history of deer and deer hunting in NY.....

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Culver let's be real... We can't get guys to pass small deer voluntarily but you want them to practice QDM? Really?

Here's where guys are getting lost, if you want something done or changed it has to be implemented. Not vary person to person on their own will. I'm all for QDM over ARs. But if you can't get guys to do either then WTH.

I hate hear the excuse well each area varies through out ny, yes it does, stop shooting every deer on sight and it doesn't have to be that way!

 

 

And that is why I would love to see them got to a full lottery draw for does. No more freebies for Bow and ML. All does by the draw and get all the hunters in on a better chance to draw a tag.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

"No Biological Reason" does not mean having a normal / better age structure is not beneficial to the deer herd in these area's.   Go ahead and ask Hurst if AR's accomplished the DEC's interpretation of their intended goal,  he is going to say YES. And then if you ask him or any biologist if having a balanced age structure is important and beneficial to the deer herd, guess what he is going to say, YES. The deer herd's age structure in these area's are improving as a result of AR's. 

 

Really? then explain the previous statements by the DEC about it being a social issue and NOT of signicant benefit.

[bluecoupe]

How about this alternative?

The idea *should be* to improve the status of the deer herd.  That doesn't necessarily mean increase the numbers, although in some cases it may if the land can support it.

 

What if:  you increase or maintain the amount of doe licenses depending on the area and restrict ALL areas to ONE buck per year per license. You pick your method of harvest, but you only get one.  I believe that would accomplish a lot more than mandatory ARs.  

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I have hunted 180 private acres with only one other guy for years now.  In the neighboring 300-400 acres there are maybe 4 other hunters hunting.  At best 3 or 4 bucks get taken out of this entire area in a year.  Even if those bucks taken were below AR minimums, how would AR's help this area??  Absolutely won't.  It's a mountainous region with hardly any agriculture on neighboring fields, so all the AR rules in the world won't make this place hold more or bigger deer than it could naturally sustain.

 

It is age. if the three taken are 1.5 then if they make it to next year they are 2.5's AR's will do nothing to modify populatons as a whole and can not effect carrying capacities. We are the only ones that can do those things, if it is allowed on the property.

[WesternNY]

If you guys are wondering why I am against Mandated AR but Pro Vol AR... here it is.

 

Anti Mandated:

 

I feel we have too much legislation.

I acknowledge that the state varies in habitat and deer herd density.

I like the right to choose.

3 pt min is the wrong way, but a start.   Look at PA's numbers, they have improved there hunting, yet they still take the same percentage of 1.5 year old bucks post AR as Pre AR.  3 pt min is nothing... it is a joke.  Yes I have spikes and crotches...    in fact I have similar soil to the folks to the east and southern Adirondacks.

 

Why I am Pro Vol AR

 

My choice

I prefer to hunt bucks above 1.5

I personally think 1.5 year old bucks are a joke, a baby, the easiest deer to harvest.  (don't blast me it's my opinion)

I like to harvest bigger, mature, animals

I like big racks (both whitetail and the other tail)

By passing on 1.5 year old bucks, you increase your chances at seeing more deer, more bucks, and slightly better quality bucks.

Teaching how to age vs a pt min is what is best practice.

I truly care about every NY hunter and want to help them succeed and improve their hunting.  It can be done, it is being done.

I feel having a more balanced buck age population is more natural, and makes for better hunting.  All RUT activity increases when you have more older bucks, this is scientific fact.  The rut is more intense, more scrapes, rubs, grunting, fighting, chasing, etc etc  etc

It is the right thing to do

lastly and the biggest... I am pro vol as it is my choice and I am tired of NY State telling me what to do.

 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

How about this alternative?

The idea *should be* to improve the status of the deer herd.  That doesn't necessarily mean increase the numbers, although in some cases it may if the land can support it.

 

What if:  you increase or maintain the amount of doe licenses depending on the area and restrict ALL areas to ONE buck per year per license. You pick your method of harvest, but you only get one.  I believe that would accomplish a lot more than mandatory ARs.  

 

 

I am not going to speak to illegal activity becasue nothing will change that in any system. I thik the one buck will help but not enough people take two bucks to make a real impact. I will admit the AR's would be more immdiate. Would be very helpful in aging the buck structure  if both were in place. But wieghed against what expense is the question that is being argued.

[WesternNY]

Really? then explain the previous statements by the DEC about it being a social issue and NOT of signicant benefit.

 

 

Culver this is a jump... but do you guys believe everything the DEC says?? cos half the time guys are bashing them, but this stated fact is taken as gold?

 

Having a better age structure makes for better hunting, and IMO (I am not a biologist) more natural.

 

What would any species be if 54% of the males were taken at the first 10% of their life expectancy????

 

I have reached out to a trusted whitetail biologist to get his opinion... I will sure to share it.

[phade]

OBR would have an equal impact in terms of immediacy.

 

People hear OBR and think only 5-6k hunters take two bucks a year. That's not the value. The value is that with two tags, hunters will plug the first thing along and then, and only then, hold out for anything with age/rack. And, with the majority of 1.5s being taken as far as age group, hunters will think twice with only one legal tag to burn.

 

I believe two of the best things Ohio does is manage/time its gun season and OBR. Those two changes in NY alone would make a good portion of the state very likely to produce the caliber and quality of hunting many people want without limiting the choice for people like Steve to take a spiker.

 

 

[DROpTINE]

You can't even compare the NY of today with the Ny of 1939. Look at just the human population difference. The sprawl is vastly different.

Anyone out there know the actual hunter numbers from back then?

I agree with you that the hunter numbers were down however, the rules were not as applicable to those who did hunt.

How bout we find the number of deer all locals took year round to survive?

You cannot possibly tell me the herd was more balanced back then....no shot.

I was simply stating a fact overlooked by everyone, the top 2 deer taken in NY were in 1939, when AR was only something a pirate said and before people managed deer.

I am not knocking anyone's thoughts or opinions on this subject.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Culver this is a jump... but do you guys believe everything the DEC says?? cos half the time guys are bashing them, but this stated fact is taken as gold?

 

Having a better age structure makes for better hunting, and IMO (I am not a biologist) more natural.

 

What would any species be if 54% of the males were taken at the first 10% of their life expectancy????

 

I have reached out to a trusted whitetail biologist to get his opinion... I will sure to share it.

 

 

I am not saying I believe it. I am stating that in threads we are talkiing about believing in the DEC (and their ECO's and Biologists I do. it is the Bureaucrats that I can’t stand) and here we are saying there public statements are no good. 

After much reading I believe a more mature age structure would be of benefit to the herd and even more so the hunters. If nothing else but becasue of the highly visible rutting activity that will take place. I am sinply stating what the DEC hastated position has been.  They werent gray about it, it was point blank.

[WesternNY]

I agree Phade....  I do support only one buck per year... and I would like to see a slightly shorter gun/ml season.

 

I liked archery better when it was shorter as well.

 

I had better get ready or I will miss my afternoon sit.... should see a whooping spiker tonight!  LOL

 JOKE people relax.

[WesternNY]

I am not saying I believe it. I am stating that in threads we are talkiing about believing in the DEC (and their ECO's and Biologists I do. it is the Bureaucrats that I can’t stand) and here we are saying there public statements are no good. 

After much reading I believe a more mature age structure would be of benefit to the herd and even more so the hunters. If nothing else but becasue of the highly visible rutting activity that will take place. I am sinply stating what the DEC hastated position has been.  They werent gray about it, it was point blank.

 

 

The key is balance, more natural and who would not want better rut activity....   most people forget about that.