1 and done.

[WNYBuckHunter]

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.

 

I dont see how its a scatter gun or fad management technique. It would be fairly non-intrusive (unlike ARs), and less detrimental to areas with low doe population (like EAB could be), and allows hunters the freedom to choose.

 

Also, how many states are there that even allow multiple bucks to be taken per season?

[phade]

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.

 

Scatter-gun? They're used in a larger number of state management plans/teams - teams and plans that you would undoubtedly drop NYS's counterparts for like a hot potato to swap out.

 

Talk about not having vision beyond one's backyard, Doc.

 

I don't call having one of the longest rut-based gun seasons in the country and having supposed severe population issues almost right. I don't call a management team that says they respond to people's feedback, yet nobody knows of one who has gotten a response, almost right. I don't call not providing ANY numbers whatsoever as to what has to be killed and where - nor why - especially when lead articles state DMPs are getting slashed 15% statewide, almost right.

Edited September 2, 2015 by phade

[Doc]

I dont see how its a scatter gun or fad management technique. It would be fairly non-intrusive (unlike ARs), and less detrimental to areas with low doe population (like EAB could be), and allows hunters the freedom to choose.

 

Also, how many states are there that even allow multiple bucks to be taken per season?

It is scatter-gun mentality in that it is a general statewide reg that would be applied in areas, even where it is unnecessary.

 

And anytime you remove a benefit that exists, intrusive may not be the correct word, but it is still taking away something that hunters currently have the right to do. Not that that should never be done, but there needs to be some pretty damn good demonstrated reason to do so. We are getting a bit too ready and eager to sacrifice of all kinds of things without demanding adequate justification. Everyone has a new idea that they want to strap on hunters without ever considering the real need.

 

Regarding the last sentence, I am not sure why we seem to assume that just because a practice exists in another state and not here that we are somehow "doing it wrong". Other states are other states with their own ideas, and requirements and circumstances.

[Doc]

Scatter-gun? They're used in a larger number of state management plans/teams - teams and plans that you would undoubtedly drop NYS's counterparts for like a hot potato to swap out.

 

Talk about not having vision beyond one's backyard, Doc.

 

I don't call having one of the longest rut-based gun seasons in the country and having supposed severe population issues almost right. I don't call a management team that says they respond to people's feedback, yet nobody knows of one who has gotten a response, almost right. I don't call not providing ANY numbers whatsoever as to what has to be killed and where - nor why - especially when lead articles state DMPs are getting slashed 15% statewide, almost right.

I thought I was pretty obvious and clear that I was addressing the part about "targeting the action only to the area of need" rather than basing management opinions like OBR, EAB, AR, etc. for the entire state on what you see in just your backyard. Don't try to imply that there was anything in that reply that was an endorsement of all that the DEC does......lol.

[WNYBuckHunter]

It is scatter-gun mentality in that it is a general statewide reg that would be applied in areas, even where it is unnecessary.

 

And anytime you remove a benefit that exists, intrusive may not be the correct word, but it is still taking away something that hunters currently have the right to do. Not that that should never be done, but there needs to be some pretty damn good demonstrated reason to do so. We are getting a bit too ready and eager to sacrifice of all kinds of things without demanding adequate justification. Everyone has a new idea that they want to strap on hunters without ever considering the real need.

 

Regarding the last sentence, I am not sure why we seem to assume that just because a practice exists in another state and not here that we are somehow "doing it wrong". Other states are other states with their own ideas, and requirements and circumstances.

 

Please explain what areas of the state where it would be a negative.

 

BTW, intrusive is exactly the word I wanted to use, it was no mistake.

[BellR]

Please explain what areas of the state where it would be a negative.

 

How about you explain instead why every single area of the state NEEDS it? 

[WNYBuckHunter]

How about you explain instead why every single area of the state NEEDS it? 

 

Its not a need anywhere biologically. Its not about need, its about managing age structure of bucks.

 

Dont try to spin this off course, answer the question I asked.

[Doc]

Please explain what areas of the state where it would be a negative.

Anyplace where it cannot be demonstrated as a needed change. Anytime you take something away from the hunting public without a significant demonstrable justification, that is "negative".

[BellR]

Its not a need anywhere biologically. Its not about need, its about managing age structure of bucks.

 

And that is why I am against it.  If you want to manage the age structure of bucks, buy yourself a parcel of land and do it there.  Don't try to force other hunters to do things your way and take away their privileges for no other reason than some hunters want to shoot deer with larger antlers. 

 

I'm all for managing the herd for optimal health, but antlers don't equal herd health.

Edited September 2, 2015 by BellR

[moog5050]

 

 

Regarding the last sentence, I am not sure why we seem to assume that just because a practice exists in another state and not here that we are somehow "doing it wrong". Other states are other states with their own ideas, and requirements and circumstances.

 

Doc

 

I think the point is that if you look to OH as an example, it has many similar characteristics as NY from a deer hunting perspective, but is much different in that it has become a destination state to hunt mature bucks.  The question is why.  I have no idea whether it can be attributed directly to OH's deer management practices, but it certainly is something I would look at if I was DEC, especially since DEC has stated that it is trying to accommodate some hunters that want bigger horns.  I recognize not every hunter cares and perhaps many would rather kill two small bucks than one mature one (or don't care about killing a buck at all), BUT if that is part of DEC's desired result, then it makes sense to look to practices that have yielded such a result.  OH, with its many similarities, is a great place to start.

 

I understand your point about further limiting opportunities, but I would be in favor of a OBR.  Once that buck is down, if you are a diehard hunter, be it meat or horn hunter, you will shoot does, which accomplishes another objective of DEC.

Edited September 2, 2015 by moog5050

[WNYBuckHunter]

And that is why I am against it.  If you want to manage the age structure of bucks, buy yourself a parcel of land and do it there.  Don't try to force other hunters to do things your way and take away their privileges for no other reason than some hunters want to shoot deer with larger antlers. 

 

I'm all for managing the herd for optimal health, but antlers don't equal herd health.

 

You dont seem to understand. The DEC is making a change in the way they manage buck age structure. Thats why they created the new buck zone map. Something will change. What would you rather see?

 

BTW age structure doesnt equal antler structure. If antler structure were the only goal, a combined point/spread restriction would go into place.

[WNYBuckHunter]

Anyplace where it cannot be demonstrated as a needed change. Anytime you take something away from the hunting public without a significant demonstrable justification, that is "negative".

 

Answer the question please.

[phade]

I thought I was pretty obvious and clear that I was addressing the part about "targeting the action only to the area of need" rather than basing management opinions like OBR, EAB, AR, etc. for the entire state on what you see in just your backyard. Don't try to imply that there was anything in that reply that was an endorsement of all that the DEC does......lol.

 

I think there is a ton of area of need geographically on a local basis, but there is also apparent need at the statewide level.

 

Not everything is a bottom up management - the best is actual a combo of top down and bottom up. Setting the right management at both levels is exponentially going to return better hunting quality and resource management than solely focusing on the microcosms.

[Doc]

Answer the question please.

Just because you didn't like the answer or cannot come up with a response does not mean that I have not answered the question. My answer stands. Oh, and by the way, that answer was intended to include the entire state. So far the state has not demonstrated a need for any form of OBR nor do they seem to have any interest in it.

[The_Real_TCIII]

Doc

I think the point is that if you look to OH as an example, it has many similar characteristics as NY from a deer hunting perspective, but is much different in that it has become a destination state to hunt mature bucks. The question is why. I have no idea whether it can be attributed directly to OH's deer management practices, but it certainly is something I would look at if I was DEC, especially since DEC has stated that it is trying to accommodate some hunters that want bigger horns. I recognize not every hunter cares and perhaps many would rather kill two small bucks than one mature one (or don't care about killing a buck at all), BUT if that is part of DEC's desired result, then it makes sense to look to practices that have yielded such a result. OH, with its many similarities, is a great place to start.

I understand your point about further limiting opportunities, but I would be in favor of a OBR. Once that buck is down, if you are a diehard hunter, be it meat or horn hunter, you will shoot does, which accomplishes another objective of DEC.

Ohio: Short gun season.

[Doc]

I think there is a ton of area of need geographically on a local basis, but there is also apparent need at the statewide level.

 

Not everything is a bottom up management - the best is actual a combo of top down and bottom up. Setting the right management at both levels is exponentially going to return better hunting quality and resource management than solely focusing on the microcosms.

Well, I am not impressed by any of current fad management schemes being thrown around, and the reason specifically for my opposition to most of them is that not all areas of the state are in need or even being benefitted by any of them. However, the OBR slides into another category which is simply a notion that is merely another hunter sacrifice with no significant demonstrable benefit.

 

 

[dbHunterNY]

I swore I posted a response, but I guess I didn't and it was just autosaved......

 

antler restrictions from a state wide approach of 3 points on one side does very little.  they work better off spread and points but most people start to get all bothered with that much restriction.  one buck rule won't change a lot either.  it just lets bucks live longer into the season.  dead opening day or last day is all the same as far as hunters concerns go.  maybe those dead bucks breed some more doe in heavily populated areas with low buck numbers but it still won't be next years opportunity which most I'd say are concerned about.  i do actually like OBR for the state though, with the option to earn a second buck.  I feel this would work anywhere in the state.  you check your buck in like we do doe in some areas.  it takes minimal effort and training to tell if it's 2.5+ from tooth replacement.  ARs and OBR is subjectively excepted or not but both do eliminate some opportunity.  maybe OBR with the opportunity to earn the 2nd buck tag will be more accepted and encourage the general hunting public to think about effects of pulling the trigger.  as of right now my mind is pretty set on this a state implemented plan.  I fully intend to bring it up to DEC too before any buck restrictions are published.  many regional biologists are pro-choice when it comes to buck harvest anyway.

[WNYBuckHunter]

Just because you didn't like the answer or cannot come up with a response does not mean that I have not answered the question. My answer stands. Oh, and by the way, that answer was intended to include the entire state. So far the state has not demonstrated a need for any form of OBR nor do they seem to have any interest in it.

 

No, you just danced around the answer. Again, buck age management is not biologically necessary, though it is inevitable because hunter satisfaction IS a necessity. Killing does is also a necessity, in some areas more than others. OBR removes the chance that someone will kill a small buck for meat, pass does and wait for Mr Big. Most likely, they will shoot a doe or two for meat along the way while waiting for Mr Big. Not everyone will, young bucks will still be taken, but Id be willing to bet the number drops pretty significantly over time. In areas that have a low population of deer, it helps to lessen the impact of additional bucks being taken. More does taken in areas that need it = positive. More bucks making it to maturity = more hunter satisfaction = positive. Hunters being able to choose what buck they care to shoot = positive. Less restrictive than Antler point or spread restrictions = positive.

 

The only negative you can come up with is change is unnecessary.

 

Sometimes I think youd rather things just stay the same because you just dont want to change. You sure like to gripe, but you rarely present any solutions to issues that satisfy anyone but yourself. You sit here and say the DEC's management sucks, but you piss and moan at every suggested change. Even the ones that have proven to work in other places. Which way do you want it? New, unfounded ideas, or proven ones? Change is inevitable.

[G-Man]

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.....????

And this is what happens in a high hunt in er population and take area, it's similar to logging if all you take is good timber. Out all you have left is junk even if it is 20 in in diameter, 90 % of nys woods have beenough highgraded, and the same will happen to the deer herd, really you better off letting a 1.5 year old 8 or 10 point walk and taking a 4pt or spike, ( for those who will say it can get big if you let it grow) the fact is an 8 pt at 1.5 years is exceptional, as is a 10, and next year it will be a bigger 8 ,10 or more points possible,a spike may be a 4 or 6 pt the next year and may not reach its potential for 3 or 4 years, so AGE is way more important than points..

[dbHunterNY]

Well, I am not impressed by any of current fad management schemes being thrown around, and the reason specifically for my opposition to most of them is that not all areas of the state are in need or even being benefitted by any of them. However, the OBR slides into another category which is simply a notion that is merely another hunter sacrifice with no significant demonstrable benefit.

 

knowing where you stand with DEC and this management stuff I'd like to know.... what you think about my last post, would you accept it more, and what your concerns are with it for what it is?

[dbHunterNY]

And this is what happens in a high hunt in er population and take area, it's similar to logging if all you take is good timber. Out all you have left is junk even if it is 20 in in diameter, 90 % of nys woods have beenough highgraded, and the same will happen to the deer herd, really you better off letting a 1.5 year old 8 or 10 point walk and taking a 4pt or spike, ( for those who will say it can get big if you let it grow) the fact is an 8 pt at 1.5 years is exceptional, as is a 10, and next year it will be a bigger 8 ,10 or more points possible,a spike may be a 4 or 6 pt the next year and may not reach its potential for 3 or 4 years, so AGE is way more important than points..

 

age is important.  problem trying to think trophy management at 1.5 yrs old is like peeing into the wind.  that 1.5 year old 8 or 10 pointer with a tiny rack might seem bigger than the 4" spike buck but you don't know.  let them both grow and the basket rack could top out in the 130's and the little spike at 1.5 could very well turn into a B&C monster.  it's been proven.

[Doc]

Doc

 

I think the point is that if you look to OH as an example, it has many similar characteristics as NY from a deer hunting perspective, but is much different in that it has become a destination state to hunt mature bucks.  The question is why.  I have no idea whether it can be attributed directly to OH's deer management practices, but it certainly is something I would look at if I was DEC, especially since DEC has stated that it is trying to accommodate some hunters that want bigger horns.  I recognize not every hunter cares and perhaps many would rather kill two small bucks than one mature one (or don't care about killing a buck at all), BUT if that is part of DEC's desired result, then it makes sense to look to practices that have yielded such a result.  OH, with its many similarities, is a great place to start.

 

I understand your point about further limiting opportunities, but I would be in favor of a OBR.  Once that buck is down, if you are a diehard hunter, be it meat or horn hunter, you will shoot does, which accomplishes another objective of DEC.

I would expect that the DEC has studied all of the states and read all of the research and followed all of the management reports, and made decisions accordingly. We should not assume that they did not. Did they come to the right conclusions or the wrong ones. I don't know. I do not have the facts that they do on that subject.

 

No, we do not manage for antlers, and there seems to be some reluctant change in that strategy. My philosophy is that perhaps they should be concentrating more on successfully managing a sustainable overall herd population before they start spending resources on some of the more specialized exotic goals. It seems they are still struggling to handle the fundamentals of herd management. I have no idea how well other states do the fundamentals of herd and habitat balance. But what I think I am seeing is the DEC taking an additional bite before they have successfully swallowed the first one.

 

I have to wonder what happens in many cases when hunters down their one and only buck. Do they then declare success and leave the woods for the season? I believe that for some, the only way that they will continue hunting is when they have the possibility (slim though it may be) of getting an even bigger buck. What that would mean is that for those hunters, they will no longer be in the woods to fill any permits that they may have.

 

I see the extra buck as conning the hunters into spending more time hunting with the very unlikely potential of getting another buck. There is a bonus of man-hours in the field with a very small actual payout in terms of bucks taken. Oh sure, that is all theoretical, but then so too are the assumed benefits of a OBR.

 

[orion]

I think one negative of OBR would be the economy.

 

I know I take off from work to hunt, I also take off for skiing, golf and of course family vacations and obligations. 

 

If I was limited to one buck the chances of me going back up to hunt after I have shot a buck would be dramatically reduced. I would save more time for the other things I do. I live 3+ hours from where I hunt I buy most my stuff up there, luckily there is a decent store nearby that I support in hope it never closes. Cutting back on my hunting would effect these store, gas stations etc. I really doubt that I'm the only one that would do this but that is an assumption. oops!

 

With the OBR I would most likely wait for a bigger buck if some have been seen or captured by camera, so it would be somewhat of a antler restriction. 

 

Like I stated early IF they wanted to change things I would be more agreeable maybe even be for a rule where the second buck would have meet certain point restrictions.

[moog5050]

I would expect that the DEC has studied all of the states and read all of the research and followed all of the management reports, and made decisions accordingly. We should not assume that they did not. Did they come to the right conclusions or the wrong ones. I don't know. I do not have the facts that they do on that subject.

 

No, we do not manage for antlers, and there seems to be some reluctant change in that strategy. My philosophy is that perhaps they should be concentrating more on successfully managing a sustainable overall herd population before they start spending resources on some of the more specialized exotic goals. It seems they are still struggling to handle the fundamentals of herd management. I have no idea how well other states do the fundamentals of herd and habitat balance. But what I think I am seeing is the DEC taking an additional bite before they have successfully swallowed the first one.

 

I have to wonder what happens in many cases when hunters down their one and only buck. Do they then declare success and leave the woods for the season? I believe that for some, the only way that they will continue hunting is when they have the possibility (slim though it may be) of getting an even bigger buck. What that would mean is that for those hunters, they will no longer be in the woods to fill any permits that they may have.

 

I see the extra buck as conning the hunters into spending more time hunting with the very unlikely potential of getting another buck. There is a bonus of man-hours in the field with a very small actual payout in terms of bucks taken. Oh sure, that is all theoretical, but then so too are the assumed benefits of a OBR.

 

 

 

Doc - what do you believe are the current DEC management objectives?  Lowering doe numbers and increasing hunter opportunities for mature bucks are at least two of the objectives as I understand it.  That understanding is based on what DEC has stated (albeit in generalized terms).  Perhaps your objectives and DEC objectives are not completely aligned, but the real question is whether DEC is taking the appropriate steps to meet its objectives.  Therein is where I seriously questions the decisions made by DEC and where I think OBR should be a reasonable consideration. 

 

Regarding the extra buck, if a hunter is waiting for mature buck no. 2, he/she probably isn't shooting does.  I think you have mentioned that you don't wait for a specific category of deer, but many do and eliminating that category after one is down will either result in the hunter killing doe or to just stop hunting.  I suspect, without any proof, that the former is more likely.  All just my opinion.

[BellR]

I think you have mentioned that you don't wait for a specific category of deer, but many do and eliminating that category after one is down will either result in the hunter killing doe or to just stop hunting.  I suspect, without any proof, that the former is more likely.  All just my opinion.

 

The thing is, in many units where there are no DMP's available or if they are there are very few, and if NY goes with OBR hunters in those areas are completely done with their season if they shoot one deer. 

 

Many of you keep forgetting that they aren't trying to reduce the population in the entire state, only in select areas.  Making changes for the entire state in ways that eliminate opportunities for others goes against what we as hunters should be trying to support.  I would fully support a OBR for the areas that they are having problems with the population being to high, but don't try to force it on the entire state.