1 and done.

[dbHunterNY]

Ease up db.  I was laughing because WE FAR EXCEEDED what YOU have set as the standard and its impossible to know if even what you suggest is what DEC wants since DEC won't state it.  I am no more content with these new ridiculous rules than you.  As I explained on August 13:

 

"Frankly, as Phade was suggesting earlier, DEC has created a system to its benefit that puts the BHs in a catch 22.  Either BHs will kill and report more doe in the first two weeks allowing DEC to say "see our plan is working" and continuing it.  Or, we don't kill and report more doe in the first 2 weeks allowing DEC to say "see BHs can't get it done" and we now need to go to more extreme measure by allowing guns or MLs in early season.  No way for BHs to win under these circumstances.   DEC has put themselves in a great position to do what they want in these "overpopulated" areas for the foreseeable future without risk of clear objective criticism.  Couple that with undefined goals and DEC can justify whatever they choose with regard to altering bow seasons.  Great political maneuvering but bad management if they want true results on reducing doe populations now."

 

I'm at ease.  they did what they did.  DEC will never jump in with both feet without testing the water first.  they're a state entity.  procrastination or silly crap is said to be "thorough" or "considering and reviewing all options".  whatever, we can't control the DEC outside hunter recruitment and satisfaction.  can't manipulate things like

 

their desired level is their BTO which they use as an indicator of population size and that is their loosely defined goal.  all their numbers.  I just did the their math with some assumptions.  pretty safe ones at that but DEC is a state entity that can't make assumptions.  assumptions open up the possibility to get screwed.  DEC has to work off of estimations and not hard numbers.  estimates are in a sense assumptions.  if they give you hard "defined" numbers based off these estimates and it doesn't work out at the end of the season they look like they failed.  so they will never give you a finite harvest goals or numbers without an if an or but.  asking for a more defined harvest goal is like asking for a population estimate.  You'll never get it.

[Doc]

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.

Actually, I have for years tried to top my archery buck with a real bruiser in gun season. It is a powerful motivator when there are all kinds of fall chores back at the house that really need doing. But neither the first buck or the 2nd buck-attempt ever stopped me from taking does. I am usually looking for a target of opportunity. I really don't think I am alone in that. If I have a doe license in my pocket and any doe larger than a fawn comes by, I would be a fool to ignore that opportunity. That's why I apply for the permits. But a prime motivator for staying afield filling doe tags is that vision of some beast possibly walking by. I am sure that is a motivator that keeps many hunters afield filling tags after that first bow-buck. Take away that daydream, and all the other more practical activities that are always pulling at you while you sit in the woods begin to look much more necessary and I believe that a lot of guys would begin to think of all kinds of reasons why the fall chores around the house are more important than hunting in a buck-less situation. And yes, it is all just  opinion, but I do watch a pile of hunters around me. And I do take note of how hunter activity, motivation and enthusiasm seems to drop as the season wears on. And I am convinced that it is primarily the hope for a buck that keeps the few guys still plugging away later in the season, still hunting, and still filling antlerless tags. If they have taken that one and only buck and they are faced with no more chances at a buck, it is likely that a lot of them will succumb to other needs and other interests. I truly believe that.

[Five Seasons]

I bet we could run out of antlerless eligible tags by October 15. But by the DEC's reasoning obtaining tags isn't a barrier. Never understood why needing to beg borrow or steal DMP consignments was seen as something to defend against opening up tags OTC without reservation.

 

Good grief.

 

part of me also thinks not all hunters are "good hunters". And if the guy next door shoots 20 doe, and you're a newbie you might not get any at all. I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but some sort of limit is needed.

[dbHunterNY]

http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/103040.html

 

This is their bible to the antlerless changes

 

Where in this do they say we need to kill 10,000 does in 8h? Nowhere. What it does say is we're above "desired levels." Great.

 

So tell me again, where they've drawn the line in the sand and said if you kill X number you won't have another antlerless season? They haven't.

 

Since you are so well connected, please call Art and Jeremy and ask them. This is nothing more than an agenda move.

 

the numbers I used to do the math with some assumptions came from the NYS DEC published "2015 Deer Hunting Forecast".  See my last post in reply to Moog why you don't have such a finite number.  I don't need to call them. Since you're on a first name basis why don't you talk to them?  The senior region 8 wildlife biologist and chief biologist both won awards for the previous deer management plan, so I'm sure they could give you some kind of answer. haha

[dbHunterNY]

part of me also thinks not all hunters are "good hunters". And if the guy next door shoots 20 doe, and you're a newbie you might not get any at all. I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but some sort of limit is needed.

 

we've got limits now.  problem is access and more of the general hunting population doing their part too like has already been said.  DEC encourages hunter mentoring.  if you're shooting 20 doe and a neighbor new hunter is struggling, you should help them out.  some can't be helped to make a difference.  you just let them do what they will and leave the limits as they are.

[dbHunterNY]

another thing DEC told me to push is their Bowhunter sighting log.... email DEC at [email protected] with subject titled "Bowhunter Sighting Log".  Give your name, address, hunter ID (back tag number), a list of the counties where you hunt, and whether or not you have participated in New York's bowhunter log in any previous year.  Maybe then they'll have better info and won't be so bold with their management decisions.

[Doc]

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. 

I just realized that I didn't address the whole first part of your reply. The part about objectives.

 

First off, I do agree with your assessment of the DEC's primary objectives. Perhaps you did leave out a couple big ones that involve assuaging the political demands of the job, and pandering to the financial interests that surround deer management these days. I guess I first have to say that my objectives probably do not exactly parallel those of the DEC. Their objectives are career and political driven. Unfortunately that is also part of their job. I take a bit more laid-back approach to my hunting, and generally hope and wish that the DEC really does their job in a professional way. Unfortunately that thought is certainly severely strained these days .... lol.

 

I do understand the need for population control in tune with habitat. That balance is a requirement for having healthy deer to hunt that are in good rig and still taste edible. I do share that objective with the DEC. Hopefully their methods and statistical activities are up to the task, and they will provide hunters the necessary tools and regs to make all that a success.That may be where I start parting ways with their objectives.

 

I am blessed with not being a pawn of political pressures with my boss a political appointee by the Governor. I am not influenced by anti-deer financial interests that basically make population targets for. Also, I am not influenced by those demanding that I turn this state into some kind of trophy deer hunting destination. I am not effected by those that use political pressure to demand DEC activities that make trophy hunting easier. So that part of my objectives are completely different from the DEC. I am still of the opinion that trophy deer should be a rare and treasured achievement that actually has some uniqueness to it and I do not feel entitled to a trophy. And I do accept that not everyone should be guaranteed a trophy. To me that is not a problem, and I apply absolutely apply no priority toward trying to do something about making trophy harvests an entitlement.

 

Is the DEC making moves to achieve their goals? I believe they are. I think they now are on board with successfully pandering to the trophy interests. I think they are working diligently toward getting decision making power from those financial interests that want deer number substantially reduced and perhaps eliminated. I believe that they are on the right track with identifying population problems, but are way out in left field in terms of expecting bowhunters to balance deer populations. I do believe that they see bowseason as a terrible waste of good deer-whacking hunting days and are intent on making the inclusion of firearms in that time-slot whenever they get a chance. Those goals are gradually being met.

 

As far as their buck management programs, I have very little interest in that as long as the population problems are still out of control. So I have no opinion as to whether they are doing an effective job in that area or not. I believe that this resource-challenged agency really shouldn't be taking on new challenges until the more fundamental ones are brought successfully under control. And so I give them low marks for priority setting.

 

Oh my! All this sure will put me in the hot seat for a while. But then I am not one to avoid controversy. excuse me while I duck for cover ..... lol.

[phade]

the numbers I used to do the math with some assumptions came from the NYS DEC published "2015 Deer Hunting Forecast". See my last post in reply to Moog why you don't have such a finite number. I don't need to call them. Since you're on a first name basis why don't you talk to them? The senior region 8 wildlife biologist and chief biologist both won awards for the previous deer management plan, so I'm sure they could give you some kind of answer. haha

There are zero parameters in which they define the need for an antlerless season or a sufficient harvest to avoid implementing one beyond fluff language. I already know what Art said. His response was literally about going to the doctor to get his, excuse me but direct language here, his head out from his ass. Then he canceled a committed appearance because a smart person called a spade a spade.

Whats that tell you?

Its pretty easy to give numbers or even conditions in which hunters meet their goals. What theyve done is set themselves up to do as they see fit without any commitment. Its done on purpose and anyone trying to say they have done any semblence of a good job with this effort needs some serious attention imo.

PS the award they won, lolololol. Its a state award within ny. Its like giving yourself a pat on the back and saying good job. dont try to act like its some peer reviewed deer industry award.

Edited September 2, 2015 by phade

[phade]

part of me also thinks not all hunters are "good hunters". And if the guy next door shoots 20 doe, and you're a newbie you might not get any at all. I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but some sort of limit is needed.

 

Then don't sell us a bill of goods that deer numbers are in dire overpopulation and something needs to be done yesterday. You can't talk out of both sides of your mouth.

 

Doe tags are OTC in darn near every benchmark state and they manage much better than we do. When the tags are gone/filled, they are gone. The DEC just prints more money not knowing what the impact is on the markets....I mean they print more tags thinking that fixes everything, but then limits putting them in the hands of the people that can get the job done.

[A Sportsman]

where I hunt in the Catskills, the severity of the winters controls deer numbers more than hunters do. Whether Joe Schmo shoots one buck or two, the effect on hunting the following years is essentially zero.

On Long Island I could understand how forcing guys to kill only one buck would increase doe harvest a certain percentage. Which may help dec whack the population. But My gut tells me the effect wouldn't be all that great. Most guys will continue to take what they need (one or 2 deer). In some cases a guy who would have shot a second buck will take a doe. Guys who perennially whackem and stackem will continue to do that. I guess the bottom line idea that will be propagated is that even though some of the biggest racked bucks come off Long Island every year, that's not good enough. Nothing is ever good enough. Welcome to the 21st century mindset.

As I've stated, if there are areas where buck doe ratios are out of wack and/or there are no big bucks, I'll at least understand the impetus for OBR. But in the 2 areas I hunt it don't make sense to me.

[A Sportsman]

where I hunt in the Catskills, the severity of the winters controls deer numbers more than hunters do. Whether Joe Schmo shoots one buck or two, the effect on hunting the following years is essentially zero.

On Long Island I could understand how forcing guys to kill only one buck would increase doe harvest a certain percentage. Which may help dec whack the population. But My gut tells me the effect wouldn't be all that great. Most guys will continue to take what they need (one or 2 deer). In some cases a guy who would have shot a second buck will take a doe. Guys who perennially whackem and stackem will continue to do that. I guess the bottom line idea that will be propagated is that even though some of the biggest racked bucks come off Long Island every year, that's not good enough. Nothing is ever good enough. Welcome to the 21st century mindset.

As I've stated, if there are areas where buck doe ratios are out of wack and/or there are no big bucks, I'll at least understand the impetus for OBR. But in the 2 areas I hunt it don't make sense to me.

[WNYBuckHunter]

Well, I cannot help it if you don't understand the answer, or understanding it causes you a problem. I have made it as clear as possible. I am assuming that you most likely don't want to hear it.

 

1 - Now, as far as all these benefits that you have stated for OBR, I have to tell you that you don't really have a clue as to whether it will help with doe take. It is just as likely that hunters will fold up camp after that first and only buck is taken and without the lure of possibly running into Mr. Big, will be out of the hunting numbers where they maybe could have filled an antlerless tag or two. So that may even wind up a negative.

 

2 - More bucks making it to maturity..... Yeah, according to the numbers of successful double buck harvests, I have to say that it approaches insignificance. So I have to say ..... Big Deal! Will hunters even notice a difference? ...... According to the numbers, the answer is probably "no".

 

3 - Hunters being able to "choose what buck they care to shoot?" ....  Well, it looks like you are counting a situation as being positive that already exists with the current system.

 

4 - So where is the real change that will be a positive that has any significance. There is none. And for that you would take away an existing opportunity and a motivator that keeps hunters afield possibly filling permits. And that gets me to my primary objection. This just one more hair-brained scheme to continue adding programs to eliminate hunter opportunities, the only answer that so many have these days to solve everything that they feel is wrong in the world. Wide sweeping, broad-brush denial of hunting opportunities is all anyone can offer. Ideas limited to only that kind of thinking are things that our shrinking hunter population really doesn't need.

 

5 - So now you claim that I am against change, and perhaps you are right. I have no use for brainless changes that are put forth just for the sake of change. I also have no use for changes bent on driving hunters from our ranks by continually removing opportunities. And I also have no use for changes that completely disregard local population and habitat variations across the state. I will at least give the DEC some credit for targeting focus areas for their actions only where it is needed. I may not agree with all of it, but at least they do recognize that one size does NOT fit all. They also recognize that their prime management challenge is deer population control and they have taken a direct route to that problem, even though they have assigned the task to the wrong season.

 

Now, you want yet another positive suggestion. Sorry the DEC has partially beat me to it. My addition that I gladly offer is to take the wonderful targeted idea that they came up with based on known over-population problems, and put it in the appropriate season where it has a chance of actually working. If they decided to establish a two or three day season that was an all weapon antlerless season in those trouble areas, I would have no problem with that. You see that is a solution aimed squarely and directly at the problem and is sure to have the desired effect. 

 

As far as all the buck management activities, I would rather have them spend their resources on something a bit more fundamental and getting the most important part of their job right, rather than wasting time, money and computer bandwidth trying to cater to those that feel that big bucks are the only targets worthy of their efforts.

 

Now, if you didn't have the wherewithal to understand my first very clear answer to your question, you probably don't have a prayer at understanding any of this. But it will give you something new to sputter over .... lol. 

 

1 - Possibly, but theres also the more likely chance that they will hold out for a bigger buck and take a doe or two for the freezer.

 

2 - You cant look at double harvests for that number. There are many guys that put the first buck they see down, then wait for Mr Big, and he never comes around.

 

3 - Who says that choice will still be there when the new buck management strategies and laws come around? ARs maybe? So yes, it is a positive.

 

4 - See # 3

 

5 - Its in place in many of the states regarded as having the best deer hunting in the world. States that people flock to every year. Yep, its hair brained.

 

As Ive said before, OBR doesnt address just buck management, nor does it just address doe population, and it doesnt just address hunter satisfaction, its meant to be a part of a good management strategy that benefits everyone without taking much opportunity away from anyone. Just because you have your goals for hunting, doesnt mean you should run anyone else down for theirs just because they arent the same.

 

BTW, Im not going to engage in your petty personal attack nonsense. It doesnt surprise me that you start with it though.

[Five Seasons]

we've got limits now.  problem is access and more of the general hunting population doing their part too like has already been said.  DEC encourages hunter mentoring.  if you're shooting 20 doe and a neighbor new hunter is struggling, you should help them out.  some can't be helped to make a difference.  you just let them do what they will and leave the limits as they are.

 

he was essentially purposing otc doe tags. which would mean no limit. And why I have to pay for a doe tag (which used to be free) for the states goal is also baffling.

 

Nobody will argue hunter access. It's the first thing I brought up with the season change. I left my house in the burbs this morning. Big breeder doe and fawn in my front yard. Head to the huntable hardwoods and barely a sign.

 

Problem is that the DEC can't really solve access issues as far as I know. So they come up with nonsense just to tell the boss they did "something". I see it all the time at work. Some action is better than no action they say. I disagree. I'd rather you do nothing, than do the wrong thing and make it worse.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Belo

[dbHunterNY]

Actually, I have for years tried to top my archery buck with a real bruiser in gun season. It is a powerful motivator when there are all kinds of fall chores back at the house that really need doing. But neither the first buck or the 2nd buck-attempt ever stopped me from taking does. I am usually looking for a target of opportunity. I really don't think I am alone in that. If I have a doe license in my pocket and any doe larger than a fawn comes by, I would be a fool to ignore that opportunity. That's why I apply for the permits. But a prime motivator for staying afield filling doe tags is that vision of some beast possibly walking by. I am sure that is a motivator that keeps many hunters afield filling tags after that first bow-buck. Take away that daydream, and all the other more practical activities that are always pulling at you while you sit in the woods begin to look much more necessary and I believe that a lot of guys would begin to think of all kinds of reasons why the fall chores around the house are more important than hunting in a buck-less situation. And yes, it is all just  opinion, but I do watch a pile of hunters around me. And I do take note of how hunter activity, motivation and enthusiasm seems to drop as the season wears on. And I am convinced that it is primarily the hope for a buck that keeps the few guys still plugging away later in the season, still hunting, and still filling antlerless tags. If they have taken that one and only buck and they are faced with no more chances at a buck, it is likely that a lot of them will succumb to other needs and other interests. I truly believe that.

 

damn... I whole heartedly agree.  I fill the freezer regardless but hunting for a buck gets me out there more readily and when I'm out there I get opportunity.  I take doe as early as I can.  However, I have no doubts that myself included will have less drive to get out a field during those times of doe only.  Someone with less opportunity than I have could easily end up not filling as many tags.  even in doe rich areas there's no guarantee for success.

[dbHunterNY]

There are zero parameters in which they define the need for an antlerless season or a sufficient harvest to avoid implementing one beyond fluff language. I already know what Art said. His response was literally about going to the doctor to get his, excuse me but direct language here, his head out from his ass. Then he canceled a committed appearance because a smart person called a spade a spade.

Whats that tell you?

Its pretty easy to give numbers or even conditions in which hunters meet their goals. What theyve done is set themselves up to do as they see fit without any commitment. Its done on purpose and anyone trying to say they have done any semblence of a good job with this effort needs some serious attention imo.

PS the award they won, lolololol. Its a state award within ny. Its like giving yourself a pat on the back and saying good job. dont try to act like its some peer reviewed deer industry award.

 

yes I know what the award was and that over half a dozen of them got it, hence the .... "hahaha" and fact I would even bring it up knowing that you know about it or look into it.  I brought it up as a joke.  My point is the numbers I came up with are at least something so you haven't been told nothing.  we all know some of us fill doe tags like it's a job but that obviously isn't enough.  in this context, more of the general hunting population need to pony up and take more doe within these WMUs.  So many are crying the blues I think I've got a great idea.  Whoever keeps whining can trade places with someone in the dacks, catskills, or similar smaller areas.  they'd be more than happy with just having opportunity to shoot something and probably have a doe thwacking party and be merry.  while I'm not ok with what DEC did that does affect me, it's not exactly the worst problem to have where you are.

[dbHunterNY]

he was essentially purposing otc doe tags. which would mean no limit. And why I have to pay for a doe tag (which used to be free) for the states goal is also baffling.

 

Nobody will argue hunter access. It's the first thing I brought up with the season change. I left my house in the burbs this morning. Big breeder doe and fawn in my front yard. Head to the huntable hardwoods and barely a sign.

 

Problem is that the DEC can't really solve access issues as far as I know. So they come up with nonsense just to tell the boss they did "something". I see it all the time at work. Some action is better than no action they say. I disagree. I'd rather you do nothing, than do the wrong thing and make it worse.

 

honestly in these places I would be absolutely fine with over the counter tags to otherwise get more to fill.  there's limitations though, declined opportunity from isolated harvest pressure, fact that some fill their freezer and no more, other spots holding lots of deer nobody can hunt one for whatever reasons, etc.  without an increase in participation it'll just create more apparent pockets of deer and probably in some cases, divide the hunting population.

[phade]

You should really work for the dec.

[dbHunterNY]

You should really work for the dec.

 

I'd have the orange army hammer the crap out of your doe population.  it'd be supply and demand causing you to pay out your a** for any over the counter tags for deer that are left.  then when you squeeze off a shot on a yearling dink with great potential, because you're still distraught by all this that happened and the idea I'd be working for DEC, your season would be over.  you didn't earn your second buck tag, because some dipstick that worked at a check station making less than $15/hr knew just enough to tell you your buck wasn't over 1.5 years old based on the teeth and it didn't cut the mustard.  you'd hate it more than you do now, especially after with all the BS awards that your tax dollars payed for. 

[Doc]

........... And why I have to pay for a doe tag (which used to be free) for the states goal is also baffling.

 

Nobody will argue hunter access. It's the first thing I brought up with the season change. I left my house in the burbs this morning. Big breeder doe and fawn in my front yard. Head to the huntable hardwoods and barely a sign.

 

Problem is that the DEC can't really solve access issues as far as I know. So they come up with nonsense just to tell the boss they did "something". I see it all the time at work. Some action is better than no action they say. I disagree. I'd rather you do nothing, than do the wrong thing and make it worse.

Some good points here that might make some great questions and statements at the next DEC "state of the herd" meeting if they dare have one ..... lol.

 

Quote: "Some action is better than no action they say."

Lol.....I hear that a lot on this forum. Never mind if the action is significant or likely to make any difference in the goals or cause any problems .... Right or wrong, just do something!

[upstatehunter]

I look at it as are arguing is point less because DEC will do as they please because face it we are nothing to them. And some want change and others don't. There needs to be a give and take system.

[gjs4]

Other than the lawless Amish in Ohio - their dnr is intolerant of cheaters... One buck rule here would still have guys carrying 3 buck tags and shooting as many dinks and fawns as they could fling lead at. We have a culture problem here- not regulations. If your hopes are the dec improving hunting, let alone mature buck numbers, please wake up

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[nyantler]

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.

I believe you might be correct if it doesn't force many hunters from hunting at all after their buck tag is filled... it would all stem on hunter satisfaction with the program and whether or not they understand what the objective is... I would just remind you that most hunter aren't as conservation minded as you and I... or even understand proper deer management. I think that those hunters who are conservation minded are probably already doing what needs to done on their own. I also think that the OBR won't be as well received by most hunters as some might think... it's hard to take away something after it's already been implemented. I've heard too many concerns about not being able to take "the buck of a lifetime" with the new doe only rule implemented this year if the opportunity were to present itself... that leads me to believe that when faced with the option of taking a buck with bow then having to pass on a monster during gun because you only have doe tags left will send most NY hunters packing on the idea of a OBR when actually faced with that reality. JMO... I admit I don't have as much faith as you in NY hunters doing the right thing. But again, I can't say that you aren't right...you could be.

[phade]

I believe you might be correct if it doesn't force many hunters from hunting at all after their buck tag is filled... it would all stem on hunter satisfaction with the program and whether or not they understand what the objective is... I would just remind you that most hunter aren't as conservation minded as you and I... or even understand proper deer management. I think that those hunters who are conservation minded are probably already doing what needs to done on their own. I also think that the OBR won't be as well received by most hunters as some might think... it's hard to take away something after it's already been implemented. I've heard too many concerns about not being able to take "the buck of a lifetime" with the new doe only rule implemented this year if the opportunity were to present itself... that leads me to believe that when faced with the option of taking a buck with bow then having to pass on a monster during gun because you only have doe tags left will send most NY hunters packing on the idea of a OBR when actually faced with that reality. JMO... I admit I don't have as much faith as you in NY hunters doing the right thing. But again, I can't say that you aren't right...you could be.

Being forced to pass on a buck of a lifetime is a good thing with OBR imo. Next year, they might think a little harder on shooting bucky jr. when its the firat buck that walks by. Tons of other states have done this, most recently IN and KY, and their hunters are still living and participating just fine. Compare that to even the crummy poll I created where more than half of the people are reducing or majorly changing their hunting habits due to the two week rule.

If they do shoot bucky jr. and they are happy with it, then I am as well. Remember only 5k hunters shoot a second buck out of how many hundreds of thousands of hunters.

[Doc]

It seems like we have an entrenched hunter culture that now considers that killing does is not hunting. How do you unravel that? Today when you want to tell anyone about a deer that you shot, you had better not be talking about a doe. And if the score isn't something significant, it is like it never happened. That is what has happened to our hunters. And now that attitude is so deeply engrained in our hunting, that it is beginning to become impossible to manage deer populations. The primary tool of management, the hunter, is broken. We have always been buck oriented in our definition of success, but now it has gotten to the point where hunters are refusing to shoot does. The DEC has to face that mentality. And yet the mentality persists and grows with all these grand schemes for increasing buck numbers and antler sizes and trophy opportunities. We can't even manage the herd size and yet we are still obsessed only with buck management issues. I don't think this is really going to end well. We are tolerated only because we are necessary to keeping deer numbers in check. We are going to have to begin doing our job.

[phade]

It seems like we have an entrenched hunter culture that now considers that killing does is not hunting. How do you unravel that? Today when you want to tell anyone about a deer that you shot, you had better not be talking about a doe. And if the score isn't something significant, it is like it never happened. That is what has happened to our hunters. And now that attitude is so deeply engrained in our hunting, that it is beginning to become impossible to manage deer populations. The primary tool of management, the hunter, is broken. We have always been buck oriented in our definition of success, but now it has gotten to the point where hunters are refusing to shoot does. The DEC has to face that mentality. And yet the mentality persists and grows with all these grand schemes for increasing buck numbers and antler sizes and trophy opportunities. We can't even manage the herd size and yet we are still obsessed only with buck management issues. I don't think this is really going to end well. We are tolerated only because we are necessary to keeping deer numbers in check. We are going to have to begin doing our job.

 

 

You are overblowing this out of proportion. People shoot lots of does overall as a hunter group. Just not as many as the DEC wants, despite us not knowing that number should be.

 

Everyone that I know in-person in this thread being vocal about OBR or taking a look at the way we manage buck tags, took does last year IN THE WMUS affected. That's not broken. What's broken is the system and the DEC and that's what people have a vested interest in resolving. People in large have the right mindset (meaning intent), but its butting heads with an agency that isn't willing to dance.

Edited September 4, 2015 by phade