Looks like there may just be statewide Antler Restricts.

[growalot]

 

2045 with a little luck.

 

I'm torn on this...I agree...but then again could the site handle another est. 300,000 pages of this thread...

[phade]

The outdoor news said you will see the new regs in print this summer in time for fall. They will blow this through so it law this year.  

 

More hunters will have to take time and really look before they shoot. Wont see as many wounded stories maybe?

 

It will be interesting to see what comes of this - there seems to be some lgitamcy from Albany that there WILL BE some changes/modifications this season. For them to say that now is pretty clear-cut because I don't think a statement would be publicly verified without the push to do SOMETHING.

 

Problem is if they are rushed and forced into making a move before they are comfortable, yet they end up doing so because of these early statements because the expectation is being set to the public.

[Lawdwaz]

 Wont see as many wounded stories maybe?

 

Maybe not more wounded bucks but certainly an increase in wounded doe.

[Lawdwaz]

Problem is if they are rushed and forced into making a move before they are comfortable, yet they end up doing so because of these early statements because the expectation is being set to the public.

 

Don't you think they have already made the decisions?

[SteveB]

Maybe not more wounded bucks but certainly an increase in wounded doe.

 

 

And an appearance "sub standard" bucks left laying in the woods.

[Lawdwaz]

And an appearance "sub standard" bucks left laying in the woods.

 

I've seen that in PA.

[phade]

Don't you think they have already made the decisions?

 

No I don't because they only have a few months in a given year to actually get anything done with any item that requires legislative changes - part of the reason NY is hamstrung.

 

They're talking about managing differrently than the regional/WMUs (aggregates). Not just the change itself but how it is managed is a big undertaking.

[dbHunterNY]

Im sorry but using your example of private entity vs. Public isnt even relevant. Doing private voluntary things are way easier than public regulation. I dont also see how less complex a restriction is the less biologically sound it is? I dont even see how one could make that assessment. A restriction is either sound or not sound for the purpose its intended for. It seems like you are confusing the purpose of such a reg to begin with, which probably has to do with the focus on private entity voluntary actions.

Other states using it is a fine example but come off of any coop exampling. Its apples and oranges.

 

I understand a co-op rules and state regulations are not the same.  I assure you that if a co-op gets big enough there's very real public issues, concerns, limitations, etc.  much of the same hurdles and backlash a state would see.  we've worked more with DEC now as a co-op than I ever have figured we would.  both restrictions of beam length/spread or quantity of points are regulated by NY or some other state so to say it's not feasible and can't be publicly regulated is just not the case.  our co-op ARs were derived from state ARs with the same goals in mind.  other co-ops are using the same ARs and measurements.  co-ops who restrict more seem to be doing so for more reasons; to get bigger antlers and older bucks.  you're completely entited to an opinion.  mine is that what I typed was very relevant.

 

there's no finite number of deer or goal that's determined to be defining line of yes everything is sound or no it doesn't.  as you said every state or entity has their own goal in mind with varying accepted levels of success.  I don't think the picture each state has of what is sound and what isn't is black and white.  for example both VT and NY think it's important to protect yearling bucks and have put ARs in place to do so.  VT figured it's ok to save fewer yearling bucks than NY being their restriction is 3 points total versus 3 pts on a side.  So are you telling me one is sound and one isn't?  the more defining characteristics you look at the more likely you'll be looking at a specific age class of buck that is the focus of your goal.  the fewer variables you have the more "sound" an idea is, that's a fact of science.  any time I've seen an AR considered by the state it's to protect yearling bucks.  most reading these threads have figured out why now.  if the purpose of such a reg is different then let me know.  food for thought I guess.

[dbHunterNY]

my GUESS is that some stuff we'll see for 2015 season and some stuff will be later.  things like aggregates you might see sooner and stuff like buck harvest restrictions for each will come later I my guess.  goals of each might also printed with regs to follow.  i can see them setting up the frame work first.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

 

there's no finite number of deer or goal that's determined to be defining line of yes everything is sound or no it doesn't.  as you said every state or entity has their own goal in mind with varying accepted levels of success.  I don't think the picture each state has of what is sound and what isn't is black and white.  for example both VT and NY think it's important to protect yearling bucks and have put ARs in place to do so.  VT figured it's ok to save fewer yearling bucks than NY being their restriction is 3 points total versus 3 pts on a side.  So are you telling me one is sound and one isn't?  the more defining characteristics you look at the more likely you'll be looking at a specific age class of buck that is the focus of your goal.  the fewer variables you have the more "sound" an idea is, that's a fact of science.  any time I've seen an AR considered by the state it's to protect yearling bucks.  most reading these threads have figured out why now.  if the purpose of such a reg is different then let me know.  food for thought I guess.

NY DEC is on record stating AR's provided were for social benefit only. Is that a sound management practice is that what is really "important"?. I wonder if they move forward with a further AR expansion that they will change their official stance on it or if they need the survey data to support their current public stance?

[phade]

I understand a co-op rules and state regulations are not the same.  I assure you that if a co-op gets big enough there's very real public issues, concerns, limitations, etc.  much of the same hurdles and backlash a state would see.  we've worked more with DEC now as a co-op than I ever have figured we would.  both restrictions of beam length/spread or quantity of points are regulated by NY or some other state so to say it's not feasible and can't be publicly regulated is just not the case.  our co-op ARs were derived from state ARs with the same goals in mind.  other co-ops are using the same ARs and measurements.  co-ops who restrict more seem to be doing so for more reasons; to get bigger antlers and older bucks.  you're completely entited to an opinion.  mine is that what I typed was very relevant.

 

there's no finite number of deer or goal that's determined to be defining line of yes everything is sound or no it doesn't.  as you said every state or entity has their own goal in mind with varying accepted levels of success.  I don't think the picture each state has of what is sound and what isn't is black and white.  for example both VT and NY think it's important to protect yearling bucks and have put ARs in place to do so.  VT figured it's ok to save fewer yearling bucks than NY being their restriction is 3 points total versus 3 pts on a side.  So are you telling me one is sound and one isn't?  the more defining characteristics you look at the more likely you'll be looking at a specific age class of buck that is the focus of your goal.  the fewer variables you have the more "sound" an idea is, that's a fact of science.  any time I've seen an AR considered by the state it's to protect yearling bucks.  most reading these threads have figured out why now.  if the purpose of such a reg is different then let me know.  food for thought I guess.

 

Point one is the bold - private voluntary restrictions are apples and public implementation of legal restrictions are apples and oranges. One is that people are willing to commit to following this 100% privately, this is not the case publicly in any way shape or form. As you stated in bold, co-ops want bigger antlers and older bucks. AR on a statewide level (in our considered proposal) isn't boiled down to that alone - if implemented the DEC's rider will be to try to also increase or better manage doe harvest in specific areas and act in part of a larger management plan. Not just to try to get buckzilla to grow tirdy points. They've already stated it is not needed biologically. If it is a tool implemented, they'll need to tie to hunter desire as they have done and also show that it acts in betterment of their overall management plan, which likely means riding hard on doe harvest in areas that need it.

 

Point 2 is that Vermont and the extreme NE (NH/VT/ME) deal with a facet of herd survival we do not have as much of an issue with save for the 'dacks. AR there is also to ensure herd stability/survival of the herd in its most basic form. The state got hit with die off in 03 and 04 and AR was instituted in 05...to advance the bucks, be able to push doe harvests when needed (as happend in 08/09), and INCREASE AVG BODY WEIGHT (reduced food source/range competition), which is attributed to increased survival rates through winter. Again, both are sound (I'm using that term according to the letter of the goals, which in NY was to advance the calss to 2.5 but based on hunter desire) and its because of what I stated earlier that you don't seem to get - such a reg is sound for its intended purpose or its not; there's no degrees or levels of "biologicaly soundness."

 

Having said that, VT is/was considering removal of the restriction as recent as this fall for some parts of the season for a couple reasons, first is probably because they have a better handle on the deer herd now (assumption on my part), the second is that the data shows that the average beam length of yearlings has decreased (the famed highgrading), and the third is that hunter satisfaction/desire is trending away from it. An independent review of the state's AR was inconclusive as to whether AR was a success relating to advancing the classes in 2013. Let that sink in for a second.

Edited February 10, 2015 by phade

[dbHunterNY]

NY DEC is on record stating AR's provided were for social benefit only. Is that a sound management practice is that what is really "important"?. I wonder if they move forward with a further AR expansion that they will change their official stance on it or if they need the survey data to support their current public stance?

 

yes I'm aware what they said and I read the report they did on the effects ARs had in the areas it was used.  they don't need to change their stance at all.  their stance is that their primary concern is hunter satisfaction.  I'm telling right now that in some areas it isn't ONLY a social issue.  I hate to say it but the general hunting public I'd guess is more concerned with what other hunters think about it more so than the actual biological effects.  when we have fawns with spots during bow season that's a biological issue.   before anyone jumps at the idea that momma was probably a fawn that gain enough weight to get bred and fawn later, know multiple cases weren't so.  momma deer were fat, healthy, and old enough.  when people race to shoot a spike that's trying to give attention to two separate doe of a bigger doe group because no other buck is around, that's also an issue.  these might not exist where you are but they do in some areas of NY.  the effort to reduce the doe population is directly related to how many bucks you have to balance it.  otherwise you'll have the same problem. effects ARs can have on a herd are beneficial.  that's what everyone should be paying attention to not what joe blow hunter down the road thinks, unless you happen to be talking to him.  learning what makes people happy doesn't make us any more educated on what's good for the deer, unless you're thinking about what's good for the deer.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

yes I'm aware what they said and I read the report they did on the effects ARs had in the areas it was used.  they don't need to change their stance at all.  their stance is that their primary concern is hunter satisfaction.  I'm telling right now that in some areas it isn't ONLY a social issue.  I hate to say it but the general hunting public I'd guess is more concerned with what other hunters think about it more so than the actual biological effects.  when we have fawns with spots during bow season that's a biological issue.   before anyone jumps at the idea that momma was probably a fawn that gain enough weight to get bred and fawn later, know multiple cases weren't so.  momma deer were fat, healthy, and old enough.  when people race to shoot a spike that's trying to give attention to two separate doe of a bigger doe group because no other buck is around, that's also an issue.  these might not exist where you are but they do in some areas of NY.  the effort to reduce the doe population is directly related to how many bucks you have to balance it.  otherwise you'll have the same problem. effects ARs can have on a herd are beneficial.  that's what everyone should be paying attention to not what joe blow hunter down the road thinks, unless you happen to be talking to him.  learning what makes people happy doesn't make us any more educated on what's good for the deer, unless you're thinking about what's good for the deer.

So are you saying they are liars or that they don't know what they are talking about?

[dbHunterNY]

Point one is the bold - private voluntary restrictions are apples and public implementation of legal restrictions are apples and oranges. One is that people are willing to commit to following this 100% privately, this is not the case publicly in any way shape or form. As you stated in bold, co-ops want bigger antlers and older bucks. AR on a statewide level (in our considered proposal) isn't boiled down to that alone - if implemented the DEC's rider will be to try to also increase or better manage doe harvest in specific areas and act in part of a larger management plan. Not just to try to get buckzilla to grow tirdy points. They've already stated it is not needed biologically. If it is a tool implemented, they'll need to tie to hunter desire as they have done and also show that it acts in betterment of their overall management plan, which likely means riding hard on doe harvest in areas that need it.

 

Point 2 is that Vermont and the extreme NE (NH/VT/ME) deal with a facet of herd survival we do not have as much of an issue with save for the 'dacks. AR there is also to ensure herd stability/survival of the herd in its most basic form. The state got hit with die off in 03 and 04 and AR was instituted in 05...to advance the bucks, be able to push doe harvests when needed (as happend in 08/09), and INCREASE AVG BODY WEIGHT (reduced food source/range competition), which is attributed to increased survival rates through winter. Again, both are sound (I'm using that term according to the letter of the goals, which in NY was to advance the calss to 2.5 but based on hunter desire) and its because of what I stated earlier that you don't seem to get - such a reg is sound for its intended purpose or its not; there's no degrees or levels of "biologicaly soundness."

 

Having said that, VT is/was considering removal of the restriction as recent as this fall for some parts of the season for a couple reasons, first is probably because they have a better handle on the deer herd now (assumption on my part), the second is that the data shows that the average beam length of yearlings has decreased (the famed highgrading), and the third is that hunter satisfaction/desire is trending away from it. An independent review of the state's AR was inconclusive as to whether AR was a success relating to advancing the classes in 2013. Let that sink in for a second.

 

lost what i typed taking care of something else....

out of the first paragraph...  I made one statement that said any antler restrictions by a co-op that are above and beyond those that I recommended, are for bigger antlers and not what I've continuously focused on (ratio, productivity, fawn recruitment, etc).  you really had to turn co-ops in general and everything I said about buckzillas and 30 pointers??  come on. lol what I proposed wasn't even close to a solution that one should consider to get there.  growing monster bucks isn't relevant to any conversation of state mandated ARs.  ARs do increase doe harvest.  also DEC has acknowledged that there is a level of hunter satisfaction/desire that increases after the first year.  if it wasn't there they wouldn't continue it or consider it for other areas.  even many hunters around the co-op I'm in that don't like antler restrictions and haven't volunteered to be apart of it have agreed that if they were mandatory that the restrictions I said wouldn't be that unreasonable.  many of them didn't have a problem with the restriction measurements and points tallies.  they more had an opposition to limiting choice in any way from what they're used to.

 

the bottom 1/2 of VT and NH is not much different in climate and geography than were I hunt in 4C, above, and below.  I live less than a half an hour from the border.  a buck eats more than a doe but all the benefits are the same and worth it as they would be here.  increased body weights are better regardless if they're needed to survive the winter.  i get it. for what they want to do, it works.  so it's sound in that sense.  I'm looking at "biologically sound" being the bigger picture in improving the herd to be more ideal (or at least better than what it is).  that's the whole idea right? making things better?  Vermont's ARs i and others feel have limited effects by design.  3 points total doesn't do much.  a lot of stuff can environmental stuff can effect antlers.  i can't imagine a decade of a particular practice can effect genetics that much in a free ranging herd that's not that intensively managed for both doe and bucks.

 

others that hunt in NY and/or VT that i know don't think the AR did enough to significantly notice a difference.  many are average hunters not bias towards any of this stuff.  i my opinion that's probably a big factor why hunters are starting to care less about having it.  why keep limiting us if barely any results are seen from the hunter?

 

anyway i gave a couple options for ARs that i think would work in an area that needed them for reasons other than trying to grow antlers.  i don't like point only ARs and would rather go by spread/beam length if we couldn't have both.  both i think is better.  knowing that some of us might have mandated ARs in areas we hunt, what would you choose and maybe where/why?

[nyantler]

[dbHunterNY]

So are you saying they are liars or that they don't know what they are talking about?

 

i think neither of those things.  I'm not trying to come across as a self-righteous ass.  they have their primary reasons why they did it, being hunter based and not deer based.  they think the system works fine enough that things aren't necessarily broke.  i partially believe that in the sense deer are going to stick around.  remember they even used the saying "if it's not broke don't fix it"?  i just don't agree with that mindset.  i think that just because something isn't subjectively broke doesn't mean you shouldn't make it better.  i think at least our area is broken enough in which we should try to fix it... many of us in the area i hunt are anyway.  the bandwagon is getting bigger every year which is good.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

i think neither of those things.  I'm not trying to come across as a self-righteous ass.  they have their primary reasons why they did it, being hunter based and not deer based.  they think the system works fine enough that things aren't necessarily broke.  i partially believe that in the sense deer are going to stick around.  remember they even used the saying "if it's not broke don't fix it"?  i just don't agree with that mindset.  i think that just because something isn't subjectively broke doesn't mean you shouldn't make it better.  i think at least our area is broken enough in which we should try to fix it... many of us in the area i hunt are anyway.  the bandwagon is getting bigger every year which is good.

The problem I have with the entire mindset is defining term like "better". It is subjective and what you view as better hunting will be different to about everyone on this forum and probably about every hunter in the state.

[dbHunterNY]

The problem I have with the entire mindset is defining term like "better". It is subjective and what you view as better hunting will be different to about everyone on this forum and probably about every hunter in the state.

 

Idk better in multiple ways.... the point being just better within constraints of what's good for the deer and good for next season and the ones that follow.  you could also throw in good for the habitat/native browse that's getting wiped out in places.  also add people who don't hunt; trying to get to work after dark without hitting a deer every time, getting landscaping tore up, or businesses taking on damage (farm crops, vegetable farms, orchards, etc).  as a hunter you can see more rutting action, more opportunity for harvest by taking doe where they need to be, and having opportunity at a nice buck (maybe even the biggest buck you've taken) year to year by moving away from the yearling age class. .....better.

[gjs4]

New hunters are new revenue- we are haggered prom dates at this point

[JimMac]

Deer regs on hold .....

http://www.outdoornews.com/February-2015/Deer-regs-changes-on-hold/

 

I'm not liking what there wanting to do. dont shot the little tender ones , shoot the genitic

monster instead so we kill off the good gene pool.. 

 

also hope that they dont shorten up the gun seasion .. had a hard time gettin out

there this year due to the cold , deer wernt moving anyways. to dang cold.

then we got some snow and the yotes came out and chassed the deer off ..

 

I hunt on farm land here corn fields, hay/straw fields with a small woods in the middle of it all

guess when all this takes place time to get the nusiance permit  LOL ... 

 

Not sure how autos are going to check age and AR when they wack them at night.

monster muture 18pt knows to stay out of the road ,,  how do u think he got that big ....

 

 

BTW where is the date of birth on that buck , I didnt find one on mine ....

 

[nyantler]

 

 

I'm not liking what there wanting to do. dont shot the little tender ones , shoot the genitic

monster instead so we kill off the good gene pool.. 

 

 

 

Sorry but that's not how it works... it's okay to have an opinion about AR's, but at least take the time to learn something about whitetail biology so that the opinion is based on something factual.

[phade]

Sorry but that's not how it works... it's okay to have an opinion about AR's, but at least take the time to learn something about whitetail biology so that the opinion is based on something factual.

 

I think he is talking about highgrading which even in the BEST of cases, comes up mixed results. Many studies show highgrading.

Edited February 27, 2015 by phade

[nyantler]

I think he is talking about highgrading which even in the BEST of cases, comes up mixed results. Many studies show highgrading.

 

Still.. the genetics of any species that have offspring alive in that genetic line will continue to carry on the genetic traits in that line unless disrupted by some other factor... so the youngest of the group carries the genetic traits just as well as the oldest in the group. By taking out the oldest we still leave room for the younger to take the place of the older in the genetic line... it's when we start eliminating the youngest in the line that there is danger of eliminating that gene pool.

[phade]

Still.. the genetics of any species that have offspring alive in that genetic line will continue to carry on the genetic traits in that line unless disrupted by some other factor... so the youngest of the group carries the genetic traits just as well as the oldest in the group. By taking out the oldest we still leave room for the younger to take the place of the older in the genetic line... it's when we start eliminating the youngest in the line that there is danger of eliminating that gene pool.

Wholesale or large scale shooting season after season of 1.5s that meet the ar minimum results in highgrading. Thats why beam length shrunk in VTs sampling by an independent third party. Its also been witnessed in other states, like MS, where it has been in effect a long time. You do eliminate or largely reduce the genes (the role it does play) with AR because the 1.5s are not breeding at a high enough rate to keep the gene alive. Edited February 28, 2015 by phade

[nyantler]

Wholesale or large scale shooting season after season of 1.5s that meet the ar minimum results in highgrading. Thats why beam length shrunk in VTs sampling by an independent third party. Its also been witnessed in other states, like MS, where it has been in effect a long time.

 

Yup that would be the "other factors" I was referring to... LOL... I understood him as meaning shooting older bucks instead of younger bucks disrupts the genetic pool...  

 

For the reason you explained above is why I have never been a fan of the 3 on a side rule as an AR... antler spread is a much better "in the field" way to minimize the killing of yearling and 1.5 year olds... I think it's even easier to do as opposed to counting points. But it would be even better if hunters that like the idea of shooting mature bucks could actually learn what a bigger buck looks like.