1 and done.

[GR HUNTER]

Less than 5%? Come to think of it, I don't think I know anyone who has ever killed two bucks in the same year, much less even one buck in back to back years. But then again I'm a city boy so who knows..

[upstatehunter]

I'm just against rights being taken away and nothing rewarding us. 1 buck per season, antler restrictions, etc and what are we getting back for it. Why not give an extra doe tag or even a late muzzy in the north. If I buy my license and don't get a doe tag for where I hunt now I have to hope I see a buck with 3 points on one side. If we get less tags, will ny lower our license cost? Bet they won't.

[shawnhu]

I'm just against rights being taken away and nothing rewarding us. 1 buck per season, antler restrictions, etc and what are we getting back for it. Why not give an extra doe tag or even a late muzzy in the north. If I buy my license and don't get a doe tag for where I hunt now I have to hope I see a buck with 3 points on one side. If we get less tags, will ny lower our license cost? Bet they won't.

I think what most are saying is that you'll be rewarded with better deer management.

X-Calibur Lighting Systems

http://facebook.com/XCaliburLightingSystems

[upstatehunter]

I should be able to manage my property how I want. If I want to shoot 2 bucks I should be able to. If you want to shoot 1 buck on your property, that's your choice not mine or billy bob down the road. Just like I shoot does but billy bob big buck hunter doesn't. He can't tell me hey you can't shoot does. If you let them keep taking from you, what will you have to say when there is nothing more to take and you can't shoot anything.

[wolc123]

Even though only 5% of hunters take (2) bucks in a given year, that does not mean that this would not cause a significant increase in doe kills. The way it is now in NY, all of the hunters who take a buck early with their bow or ML, can still look forward to killing "Mr Big" later with their rifle if he shows. It is understandable then why they hold off shooting does, knowing he may be on the trail.

Antlers are not necessary for human survival, but food is. Man can only go three weeks without it in fact. Since we got to eat, we will be forced to shoot does and/or be more selective of the buck we kill if limited to only one. Personally, I would like to be able to make the call myself if I shoot one or two bucks, but I have no doubt I would kill more does if I was limited to just one.

[Trial153]

One and done!! Yep been saying this you years ...

[G-Man]

Here is the downside long term lots of bucks will result in lots of doe fawns being born, as well as many broken antlers and higher stress for remain buck during breeding, if the are a lack of buck in a population more buck fawn are born.

The main question of 1 buck rule is it exists for ego, nothing to do with population, face it if you don't put time in you won't kill a big buck you can't stockpile them, if they survive they get harder and harder to kill.

Much easier way to have bigger buck is to close season during the rut, no bow no gun season. Then you will find out who has learned skills hunt instead of watching the tv and becoming an expert.

[Grizz1219]

All for the 1 and done.... Better than AR's I think.... Everything changes.... would rather see 1 and done than AR's so that's my vote.

 

[WNYBuckHunter]

I should be able to manage my property how I want. If I want to shoot 2 bucks I should be able to. If you want to shoot 1 buck on your property, that's your choice not mine or billy bob down the road. Just like I shoot does but billy bob big buck hunter doesn't. He can't tell me hey you can't shoot does. If you let them keep taking from you, what will you have to say when there is nothing more to take and you can't shoot anything.

 

So which way would you rather have it? The freedom to shoot the buck of your choice, or having the DEC tell you that you cant shoot a buck unless it has 3 or 4 points on one side? I will guarantee you, some new type of buck management is coming down the pike, whether you like it or not.

[phade]

Here is the downside long term lots of bucks will result in lots of doe fawns being born, as well as many broken antlers and higher stress for remain buck during breeding, if the are a lack of buck in a population more buck fawn are born.

The main question of 1 buck rule is it exists for ego, nothing to do with population, face it if you don't put time in you won't kill a big buck you can't stockpile them, if they survive they get harder and harder to kill.

Much easier way to have bigger buck is to close season during the rut, no bow no gun season. Then you will find out who has learned skills hunt instead of watching the tv and becoming an expert.

 

OBR exists for ego? Did I read that correctly? Wasn't sure if that was the question or the statement.

[Doc]

All for the 1 and done.... Better than AR's I think.... Everything changes.... would rather see 1 and done than AR's so that's my vote.

If those were the only two choices available, I would absolutely favor the OBR over AR. However, I have a third choice. Let's stop seeing how many hunters we can drive out of the sport with ridiculous random restrictions and regulations on what buck you can take and how many. Nobody is controlling deer populations through any kind of buck restrictions anyway. Deer population control is all about the does. Yes I understand that the one buck rule is an attempt to force people to shoot does if they are lucky enough to shoot that one buck. And hopefully that does offer limiting hunting to doe only...... If the hunter wants to. Or it might just motivate them to declare success and call the season to an early end. Now because that hunter is out of the woods, no does get shot at all.

 

There is a lot to all these calls for ultra heavy buck regulation that is having no effect other than driving hunters out of the sport. If that is our goal, all these demands for more heavily restricted buck hunting goes a long way toward meeting that goal.

 

Enough of this nonsense already! Real herd management involves doe only days, and if they are serious about addressing that problem, put the doe only action in the seasons where they will have the most likely success. At the very least, share the burden among all hunters. Never mind all these actions regarding buck hunting. Those are all just for the promotion of  trophyism, which is the real root to the lack of doe harvests in the first place. Instead of programs to encourage that mentality, try good well thought out programs toward thinning the doe herd.

[Grizz1219]

If those were the only two choices available, I would absolutely favor the OBR over AR. However, I have a third choice. Let's stop seeing how many hunters we can drive out of the sport with ridiculous random restrictions and regulations on what buck you can take and how many. Nobody is controlling deer populations through any kind of buck restrictions anyway. Deer population control is all about the does. Yes I understand that the one buck rule is an attempt to force people to shoot does if they are lucky enough to shoot that one buck. And hopefully that does offer limiting hunting to doe only...... If the hunter wants to. Or it might just motivate them to declare success and call the season to an early end. Now because that hunter is out of the woods, no does get shot at all.

 

There is a lot to all these calls for ultra heavy buck regulation that is having no effect other than driving hunters out of the sport. If that is our goal, all these demands for more heavily restricted buck hunting goes a long way toward meeting that goal.

 

Enough of this nonsense already! Real herd management involves doe only days, and if they are serious about addressing that problem, put the doe only action in the seasons where they will have the most likely success. At the very least, share the burden among all hunters. Never mind all these actions regarding buck hunting. Those are all just for the promotion of  trophyism, which is the real root to the lack of doe harvests in the first place. Instead of programs to encourage that mentality, try good well thought out programs toward thinning the doe herd.

 

To be honest though.... The deer herd needs to be closer to 6 does per 1 buck than it is I think.... A buck can only breed 5 to 6 does in a year before the fawns are born to late to survive... THAT should be the goal and adjusted as needed.....

[upstatehunter]

So which way would you rather have it? The freedom to shoot the buck of your choice, or having the DEC tell you that you cant shoot a buck unless it has 3 or 4 points on one side? I will guarantee you, some new type of buck management is coming down the pike, whether you like it or not.

Is the so called management plans actually a plan or a way to right more tickets? Will NYS lower license costs if we are limited on deer take per hunter?

[upstatehunter]

Also do the people who are for 1 buck per year limit, wanting to help the heard or just really wanting a big buck?

[Carbonelement]

everyone wants to shoot big bucks.... even these dopy "meat hunters" and the dopy guys who donate the meat and keep their spike rack. make it a one buck for the year...and make it an earn a buck system where they want doe numbers down you have to bring in the deer to get a buck tag. Problem solved!

 

I know this is impossible but I would like to see an age or spread min...maybe forget the spread if it has 4 on one side. but that is simply redic to think that is even possible.  

 

I wish people would get over this If I let them walk the neighbor will kill it.  we would see more mature bucks...must people simply do not think they would be able to kill a smarter 3 or 4 year old so they take the great 2 year olds out of the heard.  to each is own I guess, but i love the idiots who post about no nice deer but have a pile of spike and fork horn racks on display.

[A Sportsman]

I thought the ideal buck to doe ratio was 1:1.

Just because a buck can breed a handful of does doesn't necessarily mean their numbers should be managed on a 1:6 ratio. my guess is that would not be ideal for the health of herd genetically because it would ruin the hierarchy amongst bucks as to who is doing the breeding. Plus as for hunting, with a little bad luck, numerically you may have to see 30 does before you get eyes on a buck.

I'm not sure what the impetus for one buck rule is. My only guess is that, like AR, it's a means to create a deer herd with bigger bucks. But Instead of a mandate (like AR) it's more passive way to force hunters to hold off on shooting smaller bucks.

I got a problem with our state regulators officially buying-in to managing the herd to grow larger bucks. Especially as a blanket rule across the state. As I stated earlier, if there is a legit area that has very very few big bucks, and it can be proven, than I'll listen. But, let's be honest, all it takes is 3 yrs for a buck to grow to most people's definition of "big". My feeling is that a fair number of bucks live to the ripe old age of 3 all over the state. But as tough as it is for some to swallow, they are hard to kill. I'll admit, Looking at my numbers personally, I'm pretty lousy at killing bucks 3 yrs old and older. But I know for darn sure they are there. Hunting and especially bowhunting for big bucks is a hard game. Its supposed to be hard. Wish more people would just accept it and love it for what it is. And not worry about how to change it.

[A Sportsman]

So carbonelement...meat hunters are dopey, spike buck killers are idiots and people who shoot 2.5 yr olds are a problem. Wow. this may be hard to believe but your post comes off as a little elitist.

would you rather have a handful of really sharp hunters around you who take vacation all season long and shoot the Bucks you are after?

And if every buck was permitted to live until it was 3 or older, wouldn't it somehow dampen the feeling of accomplishment as a hunter? After all, every deer killed by every hunter would be that old.

[nyantler]

A one buck rule would have little impact on the amount of bucks taken because most hunters don't kill two and most kill none... it may allow for more does to be killed for those that get a buck early. I fail to see the advantage for NY at this stage of the game. If circumstances were different in NY it might be a viable conservation technique. But, it won't solve any current problems with deer populations or enhance conservation efforts based on what's going on now in NY. The DEC telling hunters what the problem IS, and explaining what the plan IS would be a far better short term solution than any 1 buck rule. Then, of course, hunters must actually getting on board with that plan.

Edited September 1, 2015 by nyantler

[upstatehunter]

Let's say there is an antler restriction state wide.......now what happens to the buck that has bad genes and the biggest he ever gets is a 4 point.....now we can't shoot him but he will breed how many does in his life and pass those genes on and the off spring pass it on.....????

[phade]

Let's say there is an antler restriction state wide.......now what happens to the buck that has bad genes and the biggest he ever gets is a 4 point.....now we can't shoot him but he will breed how many does in his life and pass those genes on and the off spring pass it on.....????

 

I am not a fan of AR because it removes choice as opposed to OBR which doesn't and imparts doe management. If only 5k hunters shoot a second buck, there really is little need for it from a biological/buck harvest perspective. If we take DEC numbers on face value (I know), many areas of the state are OVER the BTO, furthering the idea that second buck tag isn't needed and might be harmful in those WMUs where the BTO is higher than the target.

 

But that said, if they did statewide - you are letting the tail wag the dog and not paying attention to the 80/20 rule. There will be plenty more bucks that are more than 4 points breeding to dilute the impact of the four pointer, per say. Again, I would not like AR to be implemented. There are negative components to it as well from a biology perspective that people go back and forth on. For every point for or against, there seems to be a counter. I wouldn't fear low-end genetics in free ranging whitetails because they would be diluted. Highgrading the top-end bucks seems more of a leg to stand on in my book.

[WNYBuckHunter]

Is the so called management plans actually a plan or a way to right more tickets? Will NYS lower license costs if we are limited on deer take per hunter?

 

What are you talking about? You are already limited on how many you can take.

[phade]

A one buck rule would have little impact on the amount of bucks taken because most hunters don't kill two and most kill none... it may allow for more does to be killed for those that get a buck early. I fail to see the advantage for NY at this stage of the game. If circumstances were different in NY it might be a viable conservation technique. But, it won't solve any current problems with deer populations or enhance conservation efforts based on what's going on now in NY. The DEC telling hunters what the problem IS, and explaining what the plan IS would be a far better short term solution than any 1 buck rule. Then, of course, hunters must actually getting on board with that plan.

 

 

OBR would strongly change my hunting time, but it would shift toward their goals of population reduction, to my dismay. That second buck tag in my pocket has saved a lot of does in gun season.

 

If all I have were DMPs for gun, I might hunt less or differently, but there is a fair chance I wouldn't have any tags left ever.

 

I also strongly think that OBR forces hunters to think more management-minded. Whether we like it or not, I think a majority of hunters are apathetic (nothing wrong with it in reality for the weekend warrior or opening day hunter) and the ones who are active with a lot of field days often don't think about management beyond the "I have this tag and this tag in my pocket," mentality. OBR in my mind forces hunters to start thinking about the impact of their decisions. AR probably does the same thing to a degree, but not allowing someone the free will to be happy to shoot that forkie just rubs me the wrong way.

[WNYBuckHunter]

Also do the people who are for 1 buck per year limit, wanting to help the heard or just really wanting a big buck?

 

It would server multiple purposes, and would only be one piece of a good herd management plan. We have a good number of big bucks already with no ARs and no one buck rule, but the simple fact is that this state is looking to manage bucks more effectively. A one buck rule would be one way to go about it, ARs is another way to go about it. I would rather see a OBR. Still lets those of you who dont care about what buck they shoot, choose, but will cause others to hold out for a larger buck rather than bag the first yearling that walks by "for meat", and then pass every other deer in the woods (including the does that need to be taken for population control) waiting on Mr Big.

[WNYBuckHunter]

I thought the ideal buck to doe ratio was 1:1.

Just because a buck can breed a handful of does doesn't necessarily mean their numbers should be managed on a 1:6 ratio. my guess is that would not be ideal for the health of herd genetically because it would ruin the hierarchy amongst bucks as to who is doing the breeding. Plus as for hunting, with a little bad luck, numerically you may have to see 30 does before you get eyes on a buck.

I'm not sure what the impetus for one buck rule is. My only guess is that, like AR, it's a means to create a deer herd with bigger bucks. But Instead of a mandate (like AR) it's more passive way to force hunters to hold off on shooting smaller bucks.

I got a problem with our state regulators officially buying-in to managing the herd to grow larger bucks. Especially as a blanket rule across the state. As I stated earlier, if there is a legit area that has very very few big bucks, and it can be proven, than I'll listen. But, let's be honest, all it takes is 3 yrs for a buck to grow to most people's definition of "big". My feeling is that a fair number of bucks live to the ripe old age of 3 all over the state. But as tough as it is for some to swallow, they are hard to kill. I'll admit, Looking at my numbers personally, I'm pretty lousy at killing bucks 3 yrs old and older. But I know for darn sure they are there. Hunting and especially bowhunting for big bucks is a hard game. Its supposed to be hard. Wish more people would just accept it and love it for what it is. And not worry about how to change it.

 

Its a way to try and convince hunters to hold out for a larger buck without forcing an antler restriction down their throat. You would still be free to shoot whatever buck you want.

[Doc]

I still cannot get excited about any of these "scatter-gun" fad-management schemes. As much as I feel the DEC is blowing the application of some pretty good management regarding the doe-only days, I still will give them some credit for trying to attack the control of deer populations in specific designated problem areas. Yeah, it sure looks like they are screwing up the whole idea by targeting the least effective season, but they are on the right track with targeted programs of management. All these other schemes like AR, OBR, EAB, are all assuming one-size-fits-all, across the state, broad-brush thinking. There is no sense of vision beyond one's own back yard. Give credit where credit is due. The DEC has almost got it right.