War on bow hunting or war on deer numbers

[G-Man]

What if they just changed the season to having gun first, Oct 15 to Nov 15th and then archery from Nov 21 thru dec?

Better weather for aging gun hunters and higher take, and archers can Hold out for their older smarter buck with no interference.

It's not about an earlier chance at a big buck then. And archers can shoot either sex.

Wonder how many archers would quit hunting with out the opportunity for an early harvest?

[growalot]

I'm now hunting out of heated blinds...not a problem....I just wouldn't have any deer to shoot...for they would all be nocturnal here by then.

Edited August 7, 2015 by growalot

[chiefbkt]

It's not much different for northern tier right now.  I don't think it would have any benefits at all.  

[Doc]

Ha-ha-ha .... why don't we just see exactly how screwed up we can make things. The ideas keep getting screwier and screwier. However, I will say that such a thought could easily be something hatched by the DEC. That is kind of the way they are thinking these days. I know the gun hunters would be all for it. It seems that lately that season time slot is the envy of everybody in hunting these days and there is no shortage of people looking to push bowhunters out of it or glom onto it for themselves .... lol. And that thought always seems to come with the blessing of the DEC these days.

[Huntscreek]

I was working a booth at a Hunting Expo, an Anti came up and said. "If we ban or make hunting harder You'll have no use for your Gun in NY either". So I think the red tape is just that to make people lose interest in hunting or give up. You have to admit they are coming at us from every angle, Anti Hunting & Anti gun Groups. Or it could just be the DEC is just Screwed up, either way we pay. 

[thphm]

Bow hunters have tried for a long time to get the Oct. 1 st. opening date in the Southern Zone . Do you rely think they would want it pushed behind Rifle season, especialy the elders of them.

[NFA-ADK]

[grampy]

Right now there is a war against hunting and hunters. And DEC seems to be on the wrong side.

[The_Field_Ager]

, and archers can Hold out for their older smarter buck with no interference.

 

 

 

What...in the middle of the night? 

[Five Seasons]

For christs sake. Better wether for aging gun hunters? Did you really just write that? Try pulling a 70lb bow back in December when you've been sitting for hours

I need a deer within 30 yards. You need 300. I need the rut to even maybe get a chance. Ridiculous the entitlement the gun only hunter wants.

Don't forget almost all us bow hunters use a gun too.

[steve863]

I think people here are completely forgetting why we are allowed to hunt at all.  The ONLY reason we are allowed is to control the animal populations.  Yeah, the game departments might cater to us hunters and let us get our kicks and continue our tradition just so they don't lose us to do the job they need us to do.  They might give us special seasons, longer seasons, allow us to use different weapons, methods, etc., but the name of the game is population control.  If there weren't enough animals out there to shoot, NONE of us, bowhunters, gun hunters, slingshot hunters, etc. would be allowed to hunt at all.  I think people need to keep this in mind before they think their beloved bow season or any other season is being picked on.  We are just a tool for the game departments, and if they didn't need us anymore none of us would be hunting, period.  All the bitching in the world wouldn't change things either.  So we should all consider ourselves lucky that there are animals out there to hunt and that we still can hunt eventhough things might be a little different than they used to be. 

 

 

[beachpeaz]

I think people here are completely forgetting why we are allowed to hunt at all.  The ONLY reason we are allowed is to control the animal populations.  Yeah, the game departments might cater to us hunters and let us get our kicks and continue our tradition just so they don't lose us to do the job they need us to do.  They might give us special seasons, longer seasons, allow us to use different weapons, methods, etc., but the name of the game is population control.  If there weren't enough animals out there to shoot, NONE of us, bowhunters, gun hunters, slingshot hunters, etc. would be allowed to hunt at all.  I think people need to keep this in mind before they think their beloved bow season or any other season is being picked on.  We are just a tool for the game departments, and if they didn't need us anymore none of us would be hunting, period.  All the bitching in the world wouldn't change things either.  So we should all consider ourselves lucky that there are animals out there to hunt and that we still can hunt eventhough things might be a little different than they used to be. 

 

Thats not exactly a true statement.  I agree that hunting is a form of population control, but that is secondary.  Nature has its own population control.  Without hunters (we have only been around for a couple hundred years), nature would balance its own populations as it did hundreds of years ago.

 

What everyone is forgetting, and the MAIN reason for hunting / fishing season's and license sales is the revenue they receive off of it.  This is #1.  There is no close second.  If it weren't for us outdoorsman, wildlife programs, including endagered species protection, parks, preserves, forestry, species studies, etc, etc,etc, etc, etc. would not exist.  God knows that our bankrupt state can't fund the DEC.  They can't even fund our welfare system for humans, let alone animals.

 

[beachpeaz]

What if they just changed the season to having gun first, Oct 15 to Nov 15th and then archery from Nov 21 thru dec?

Better weather for aging gun hunters and higher take, and archers can Hold out for their older smarter buck with no interference.

It's not about an earlier chance at a big buck then. And archers can shoot either sex.

Wonder how many archers would quit hunting with out the opportunity for an early harvest?

 

G-Man, let me ask a really obvious question.  Not just to you, but to ALL the people talking about these changes....

 

They say that the changes were for population control, correct?  They want to kill off a certain percentage of Does in some areas, correct?

 

Why early bow season then??  They could make opening day of gun season Doe only and kill more Doe in 1 day then bow hunters could kill in an entire season.  Bow hunters are such a tiny, tiny portion of deer kills, it makes no sense.  I just won't hunt the first 2 weeks.  The 15 or so people in my bow hunting circle said the same thing.  This regulation will not change the amount of deer that are killed, it will just alter when they are killed.

 

Next year the DEC will come up with another set of reactive hairbrain ideas that won't work.  We are all just cogs in their revenue machine.

 

[steve863]

Thats not exactly a true statement.  I agree that hunting is a form of population control, but that is secondary.  Nature has its own population control.  Without hunters (we have only been around for a couple hundred years), nature would balance its own populations as it did hundreds of years ago.

 

What everyone is forgetting, and the MAIN reason for hunting / fishing season's and license sales is the revenue they receive off of it.  This is #1.  There is no close second.  If it weren't for us outdoorsman, wildlife programs, including endagered species protection, parks, preserves, forestry, species studies, etc, etc,etc, etc, etc. would not exist.  God knows that our bankrupt state can't fund the DEC.  They can't even fund our welfare system for humans, let alone animals.

 

While yes, I agree with what you say on the revenue front.  Money surely talks as we all know, but I will disagree with what you say about nature balancing itself out.  There are MORE deer these days in the suburban areas than there are in the rural areas.  Hunters for various reason can't get the job done in these areas, so how will nature itself?  Would having more predators in these areas do the trick and would that be a good thing for the human population in these areas?   Nature itself would not be as easy a fix as you claim, thus hunters are needed.  Yeah, the states love the revenue from hunting, but believe me, with all the anti-hunting sentiment in todays world, hunting would have already been banned if there wasn't a real need for it.  They'd get their revenue in other ways, like taxing your paycheck and your property some more.  They'd have NO problem thinking of ways to steal more money from you to make up the difference.

[landtracdeerhunter]

I would ajust. We don't have much choice in this state, do we?

 

 

Edited August 7, 2015 by landtracdeerhunter

[beachpeaz]

While yes, I agree with what you say on the revenue front.  Money surely talks as we all know, but I will disagree with what you say about nature balancing itself out.  There are MORE deer these days in the suburban areas than there are in the rural areas.  Hunters for various reason can't get the job done in these areas, so how will nature itself?  Would having more predators in these areas do the trick and would that be a good thing for the human population in these areas?   Nature itself would not be as easy a fix as you claim, thus hunters are needed.  Yeah, the states love the revenue from hunting, but believe me, with all the anti-hunting sentiment in todays world, hunting would have already been banned if there wasn't a real need for it.  They'd get their revenue in other ways, like taxing your paycheck and your property some more.  They'd have NO problem thinking of ways to steal more money from you to make up the difference.

 

Agreed, there are more deer in the suburban areas.  Why?  Because there is no nature!  it is essentially a sanctuary for "cute, cuddly" creatures.  I'm not saying that we need to release a pack of wolves in Buffalo, NY, lol.  I'm simply saying that absent of humans, nature does in fact balance itself.  Not just by predation, but by food as well.  When food is abundant, populations rise.  When food is absent, populations crash. Disease creates population changes.  There are a lot of environmental factors that go into that.  Remove humans and it is survival of the fitest as Darwin would say.  Add humans, and everything gets fouled up. We try and do natures job for it.

 

Where I live, part of the "doe only" reg, the balance is just fine.  I am in a rural area.  The coyotes are taking out more and more fawns every year.  There are even a few bears moving into town.  The DEC reactive medling in buck to doe ratios, a natural occuring cycle in nature, won't ever change anything.  In 2 years, the DEC will have another reaction to lack of Doe's and make it buck only, watch and see.  You must remember a short time ago when it was virtually impossible to get a Doe permit right?  You had to be there the first 5 minutes they went on sale to get one??  Everything operates in cycles.  Populations naturally rise and fall.  Our DEC, has no impact on that.

 

This puts me right back to my original statement (and, yes, i agree with you there as well that the gov't will always get its money somehow), that without hunters (and outdoor sports), the billons of dollars in funding would be irreplacable.  The DEC's only job is to collect revenue and make it "appear" as if they are effecting nature, when in reality, they are not.

 

[stubby68]

                            To think that nature can balance anything to our likeing is wrong. Nature will balance things to what fits her not what fits humans. When we talk about heard balance we are actually talking about what is exceptable to humans. People do not want deer eating there flowers or getting the road and hitting them with there car. Nature can only do so much when humans influance things as much as we do. That is why DEC uses hunters to balance things. I do not believe we have the over populations that they say we do. They are ststeing what humans say is too many not mother nature. When left alone nature will find a way and do just fine but in todays world humans influance and screw things up and nature can not cope. Some day nature wiil say enough is enough and I doubt ant of us want to be here for that.

[Huntscreek]

Deer Population control and Deer Management are not the same thing as far as I'm concerned. Do you want Bucks or Does? Do you want Trophy Bucks? Do you want More Doe? Its all has to be Factored in. If they Kill X amount of Doe's That will be  taking 2-3 Deer out of Next years Heard. If you want Trophy Bucks Your going to Cull Bucks out Not ALL Doe. What is The DEC Goal ? when they get that straight  Let me know. Now If you want dead Deer any size Doe's Than a 270 with a 150gr bullet topped off with good Glass now Your Fixing the Population. Remember This What ever we do today will effect Tomorrow, Hunt Smart Manage your own. 

[Five Seasons]

I think people here are completely forgetting why we are allowed to hunt at all.  The ONLY reason we are allowed is to control the animal populations.  Yeah, the game departments might cater to us hunters and let us get our kicks and continue our tradition just so they don't lose us to do the job they need us to do.  They might give us special seasons, longer seasons, allow us to use different weapons, methods, etc., but the name of the game is population control.  If there weren't enough animals out there to shoot, NONE of us, bowhunters, gun hunters, slingshot hunters, etc. would be allowed to hunt at all.  I think people need to keep this in mind before they think their beloved bow season or any other season is being picked on.  We are just a tool for the game departments, and if they didn't need us anymore none of us would be hunting, period.  All the bitching in the world wouldn't change things either.  So we should all consider ourselves lucky that there are animals out there to hunt and that we still can hunt eventhough things might be a little different than they used to be. 

 

I know where you're going with that and I'm not sure I totally disagree. I think society recognizes population control is important and so do most hunters. However, until an animal is endangered I don't think hunting "goes away". The bag limits always adjust to the population size. We're seeing that with turkey right now. A balance between too many and enough to be able to hunt and also not eliminate. Otherwise, wouldn't turkey hunting just be outlawed all together? Wouldn't we ban hunting deer in the NZ?

 

The big argument keeping guns in homes is hunting. Hunting is the very first thing humans did. I might be naive but I think it's a long day before hunting anything is made illegal... regardless of animal numbers. Need to look no further than the draws and permits of the elk, moose, sheep etc out west.

 

[Five Seasons]

 

 

Where I live, part of the "doe only" reg, the balance is just fine.  I am in a rural area.  The coyotes are taking out more and more fawns every year.  There are even a few bears moving into town.

 

 

makes me wonder if that's why our yote season isn't year long like many states. The DEC doesn't want us taking them out.

[steve863]

I know where you're going with that and I'm not sure I totally disagree. I think society recognizes population control is important and so do most hunters. However, until an animal is endangered I don't think hunting "goes away". The bag limits always adjust to the population size. We're seeing that with turkey right now. A balance between too many and enough to be able to hunt and also not eliminate. Otherwise, wouldn't turkey hunting just be outlawed all together? Wouldn't we ban hunting deer in the NZ?

 

The big argument keeping guns in homes is hunting. Hunting is the very first thing humans did. I might be naive but I think it's a long day before hunting anything is made illegal... regardless of animal numbers. Need to look no further than the draws and permits of the elk, moose, sheep etc out west.

 

 

 

I didn't say hunting was going anywhere anytime soon.  There are more deer and fewer hunters, so it will be a challenge to keep deer numbers down.  They may have to beg people to hunt with the way things are going.  Everyone can't hunt on state land and private landowners either won't allow hunting or will charge you thru the nose for the privilege to hunt their land, so how will these deer get taken out?  Many hunters are already giving it up because of lack of finding private land to hunt.  Things might probably get worse with deer population numbers if there is NO one who wants to cough up big money to hunt them, so the need for hunting definitely isn't going anywhere anytime soon!  Whether there will be hunters willing to hunt them, that's a different story.  Just look at all the bowhunter who now want to take their bows and go home because of this rule change?  Don't take much to get people to give it up.

Edited August 7, 2015 by steve863

[beachpeaz]

makes me wonder if that's why our yote season isn't year long like many states. The DEC doesn't want us taking them out.

 

Thats a very rational thought.  With all the thinking I do regarding hunting pretty much year round, I never thought of the common sense approach that the DEC wants coyotes wiping out deer and turkey!  it would make sense.  I would love to be a fly on the wall during their conversations regarding yote hunting.  They are getting out of control by me.  On my most recent camera pull, I have more yote pictures than deer.  Few people hunt them, and even if you do, they are like rabbits in that they have very high offspring rates and very high survival rates.  Yotes will always outbreed a deer.  It makes no sense (other than what you said) as to why there is any season or bag limits on those stupid things.

 

I know in Utah where my Brother-in-law lives, for every Yote you shoot, you just clip their ear off and their DNR give you $50.  They WANT you to kill them and keep them under control.

 

Its only a matter of time here in NY that another failed intervention by our DEC will backfire!

[beachpeaz]

                            To think that nature can balance anything to our likeing is wrong. Nature will balance things to what fits her not what fits humans. When we talk about heard balance we are actually talking about what is exceptable to humans. People do not want deer eating there flowers or getting the road and hitting them with there car. Nature can only do so much when humans influance things as much as we do. That is why DEC uses hunters to balance things. I do not believe we have the over populations that they say we do. They are ststeing what humans say is too many not mother nature. When left alone nature will find a way and do just fine but in todays world humans influance and screw things up and nature can not cope. Some day nature wiil say enough is enough and I doubt ant of us want to be here for that.

 

I think you need to re-read what I actually wrote.  I didn't say that nature makes population ideal for humans, I said it makes its own balance.  And by balance, I am referring to what NATURE considers balanced.  If food is scarce and predators are high, population will be low.  That is natures balance.  When food rebounds so would population.  There is a very obvious correlation amongst these environmental factors.

 

This may be a very tough concept for people to conceptualize, but I would argue as far to say that EVEN IF you eliminated hunting in NYS altogether, the deer population would remain the same.  The DEC does NOT in any form have an impact on our deer heards.  If hunters didn't kill the deer, the lack of food, predators, cars, etc would.  Nature would balance them out.  True statement.  Darwinism at its finest.

[NFA-ADK]

You are making way to much sense.  Do you belong here?  LOL

I think you need to re-read what I actually wrote.  I didn't say that nature makes population ideal for humans, I said it makes its own balance.  And by balance, I am referring to what NATURE considers balanced.  If food is scarce and predators are high, population will be low.  That is natures balance.  When food rebounds so would population.  There is a very obvious correlation amongst these environmental factors.

 

This may be a very tough concept for people to conceptualize, but I would argue as far to say that EVEN IF you eliminated hunting in NYS altogether, the deer population would remain the same.  The DEC does NOT in any form have an impact on our deer heards.  If hunters didn't kill the deer, the lack of food, predators, cars, etc would.  Nature would balance them out.  True statement.  Darwinism at its finest.

 

[stoneam2006]

I'm still lost as to why they would not full inclusion of xbow before this? Seems that xbow had what like 5000 deer kills if I remember right. So in theory you take that 5000 in 2 weeks and match that in another 4 weeks so half the kills....and would likely be more due to the deer not knowing anything yet (bow season or not by end of it deer know they are getting targeted) so would seem to me that more kills would come....not to mention the guys who sill holding out I'm buying bow tag bc they only get 2 weeks with xbow....