No buck hunting

[stubby68]

          Here is  a question that came up the other day while discussing AR and the doe only 2 weeks during bow last year with a few guys. Seemed like there were alot of guys who sat out or found hunting spots in areas they could kill bucks those 2 weeks last year.How many guys would still deer hunt if you were not allowed to shoot bucks. Say instead of AR how about Dec jus close the whole state to buck hunting for 5 years. That would really help in the quest for older bigger bucks wouldn't it? 

         I know I would still hunt. Heck I wish I could get my regular season tag as an either sex tag like bow hunters do. I would rather take a doe for the meat then a buck for the rack,and if I didn't see a buck I wouldn't lose money on a tag not getting used.

[wolc123]

I am a pure meat hunter but I do prefer killing bucks over does for three reasons:  They are easier for me to butcher because there is less fat to trim away, the antlers make nice grab handles to drag to the tractor,  and they provide nice reminders of successful hunts in past years.   I would oppose any further restrictions on buck harvest, be it AR's, one buck only, or no bucks for one or more years.   I don't consider any hunting season completely successful unless both of my buck tags are punched.   It does not matter to me, if they are filled with spikes or 10 pointers.   I am thankful that neither of my bucks this season was worthy of a shoulder mount.  They both had significantly larger bodies than smaller bucks I passed earlier and, along with 2 does and a BB, will provide our family and friends with plenty of food.  Now I can put the $500 that a mount would cost into a new rifle for my oldest daughter for Christmas.    

So the bottom line is that I would still hunt if only does were allowed, but I would be pissed off about the restriction.  The only folks who it would benefit is the "trophy hunters".   The non-hunting folks are far more supportive of meat hunters than trophy hunters, so I don't suppose we will ever have to worry about such a silly rule.       

[chrisw]

          Here is  a question that came up the other day while discussing AR and the doe only 2 weeks during bow last year with a few guys. Seemed like there were alot of guys who sat out or found hunting spots in areas they could kill bucks those 2 weeks last year.How many guys would still deer hunt if you were not allowed to shoot bucks. Say instead of AR how about Dec jus close the whole state to buck hunting for 5 years. That would really help in the quest for older bigger bucks wouldn't it? 
         I know I would still hunt. Heck I wish I could get my regular season tag as an either sex tag like bow hunters do. I would rather take a doe for the meat then a buck for the rack,and if I didn't see a buck I wouldn't lose money on a tag not getting used.

You've now mentioned that you fill every tag you have at any cost... Why? Is it so hard for you to not use a tag? Once I have enough venison, I'm selective to the point that I rarely kill anything else. I'll burn the rest of my tags at season end if I've had a generous season, just because you have them doesn't mean you have to shoot a deer. I hunt for venison first, trophy second, trophies don't weigh a season's success, your experiences do. And to your comment about you wish your regular season tag was either sex? It is. It's called late season... Read your regs...

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

[stubby68]

20 minutes ago, chrisw said:

 

 

You've now mentioned that you fill every tag you have at any cost... Why? Is it so hard for you to not use a tag? Once I have enough venison, I'm selective to the point that I rarely kill anything else. I'll burn the rest of my tags at season end if I've had a generous season, just because you have them doesn't mean you have to shoot a deer. I hunt for venison first, trophy second, trophies don't weigh a season's success, your experiences do. And to your comment about you wish your regular season tag was either sex? It is. It's called late season... Read your regs...

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
 

 

 

    I know about late season I ment through all  gun season. Why does it have to be buck only at all. If I don't see a buck at all I might not see enough doe to fill thAt tag on the week it is either sex.

      As for filling tags. Number I would like enough venison to have it every day of the year. I can easily use 8 deer up in no time. Also I spend money on the tags if they do not get used then that is money wasted. might as well throw the money in the wood stove. It is by no means a lot of money however I am not in the habit of buying something and not using it. Would you buy .  a, pair of shoes never wear them the throw them in garbage. Do you goto a grocery store and give them money and walk out without food.

Edited December 4, 2016 by stubby68

[chrisw]

    I know about late season I ment through all  gun season. Why does it have to be buck only at all. If I don't see a buck at all I might not see enough doe to fill thAt tag on the week it is either sex.
      As for filling tags. Number I would like enough venison to have it every day of the year. I can easily use 8 deer up in no time. Also I spend money on the tags if they do not get used then that is money wasted. might as well throw the money in the wood stove. It is by no means a lot of money however I am not in the habit of buying something and not using it. Would you buy .  a, pair of shoes never wear them the throw them in garbage. Do you goto a grocery store and give them money and walk out without food.

Your correlations aren't even remotely related. I don't need hunting to survive, neither do you. Hunting is a passion that just so happens to also provide me with the reward of venison. The experience is more the reason I hunt. If it weren't for the experience we would all be better off going to the store and buying meat if you're looking at it merely as a price point, not to mention the time spent. My venison probably costs me more than filet mignon if I work up all of my gear, gas, time, tags. In another thread you are complaining that the selective hunters are wiping out the deer population where you hunt, I suggest you sit in a quiet place and truly think about what you're saying... You want to fill every doe tag and also use your buck tag for does and yet it's not you're fault the deer are in decline? It's the guy passing on 1-2yr old bucks that's wiping out the herd? If that's seriously your argument then I'm done because you truly are delusional...

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

[Doc]

I hunt deer ......bucks, does, big, little ..... using guns and bows. I don't hunt just for antlers, and I set my own challenges. And what I really hate is hunters that would put mandatory restrictions of all kinds, selfishly imposing their standards on all other hunters. All I ever here anymore is the constant calls for every perceived buck problem being solved by some kind of new restrictions. We are constantly driving hunters out of the activity with all the petty arguments and the constant search for heaping as many specialized regulations as possible in a quest to make the entire hunter population fall in line with the latest pop- management scheme. And all this is aimed at shrinking the available legal segment of the deer population just to make it easier for those that measure their hunting success by the number of inches of antler.

[Lawdwaz]

5 hours ago, chrisw said:

 

Your correlations aren't even remotely related. I don't need hunting to survive, neither do you. Hunting is a passion that just so happens to also provide me with the reward of venison. The experience is more the reason I hunt. If it weren't for the experience we would all be better off going to the store and buying meat if you're looking at it merely as a price point, not to mention the time spent. My venison probably costs me more than filet mignon if I work up all of my gear, gas, time, tags. In another thread you are complaining that the selective hunters are wiping out the deer population where you hunt, I suggest you sit in a quiet place and truly think about what you're saying... You want to fill every doe tag and also use your buck tag for does and yet it's not you're fault the deer are in decline? It's the guy passing on 1-2yr old bucks that's wiping out the herd? If that's seriously your argument then I'm done because you truly are delusional...

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
 

 

You'd be better off hitting your thump with a framing hammer than arguing with stubby. 

[landtracdeerhunter]

The DEC.found the answer to your question with doe only areas in Lake Plains and 9F areas last year, during first two weeks of bow and muzzleloader season. Very few. Season is back to where it should be; thanks to the hunting community overwhelming strong support against.

[Jeremy K]

Why do we need an increased number of large bucks? So everyone gets a trophy? That's the mentality behind it , the fact that everyone doesn't get a trophy is what makes it so spectacular when you do harvest a trophy buck.

[Nomad]

Most years I don't take any bucks in gun season , that's what bow season is for !!!  

 

[Doc]

8 hours ago, Jeremy K said:

Why do we need an increased number of large bucks? So everyone gets a trophy? That's the mentality behind it , the fact that everyone doesn't get a trophy is what makes it so spectacular when you do harvest a trophy buck.

It sounds like the way they are approaching sports in school these days. It's meant to soothe everyone's self-esteem by making sure everyone gets a trophy. Isn't that nice ..... lol.

[Lawdwaz]

1 hour ago, Larry302 said:

Most years I don't take any bucks in gun season , that's what bow season is for !!!  

 

I've killed a truck load of bucks with the gun but the bow bucks stand out vividly........

[Nomad]

Ya me too, but now a days , I try to shoot a decent buck in bow and will only shoot one in gun if it's much bigger . That's yet to happen although last year I almost pulled the trigger on one at 25 yards, but decided to,let him live another year .

[CharlieNY]

I believe that way too many tags are given out in certain areas to begin with, and that has had a direct influence on the quality of deer hunting. As an example I hunt in 7F with my son. We hunt with bow, gun, and muzzleloader. We both each received 5 tags each, for a total of 10 tags between the two of us (including our DMP permits). We could have gone back and gotten 2 additional doe tags each when the leftover DMP tags became available. That would have been a total of 7 tags each, or 14 tags for the two of us. There is no logical reason for us to fill these tags and I personally despise hunters who fill tags only because they got them and use the "if it's brown it goes down" mentality. We have taken 2 deer so far and are now predominately hunting for a mature buck. We have passed up many young bucks and does. We only take that which we will use. I have no problem whatsoever throwing out my unused tags at the end of season, nor does my son. There is much more enjoyment and satisfaction to hunting than just filling tags. The time I spend in the woods hunting with my son is priceless, and we don't need to fill a tag to have a great day together.

[stubby68]

12 hours ago, CharlieNY said:

I believe that way too many tags are given out in certain areas to begin with, and that has had a direct influence on the quality of deer hunting. As an example I hunt in 7F with my son. We hunt with bow, gun, and muzzleloader. We both each received 5 tags each, for a total of 10 tags between the two of us (including our DMP permits). We could have gone back and gotten 2 additional doe tags each when the leftover DMP tags became available. That would have been a total of 7 tags each, or 14 tags for the two of us. There is no logical reason for us to fill these tags and I personally despise hunters who fill tags only because they got them and use the "if it's brown it goes down" mentality. We have taken 2 deer so far and are now predominately hunting for a mature buck. We have passed up many young bucks and does. We only take that which we will use. I have no problem whatsoever throwing out my unused tags at the end of season, nor does my son. There is much more enjoyment and satisfaction to hunting than just filling tags. The time I spend in the woods hunting with my son is priceless, and we don't need to fill a tag to have a great day together.

           I don't need to fill tags to have a good day in the woods either.  I am not brown is down either. I make sure the deer is at least 1 1/2 years old. No more then 2 1/2 for a buck unless last I can hunt to fill the tag then I will go older. Does I will shoot at 1 1/2 and up to whatever. I will not waste money and paying for a tag and not using it is wasting money. If I have been seeing lots of deer I will sometimes let any walk just because I  do not feel like doing the work after the shot.

            I also do not need a tag to be out enjoying the woods. I make sure all my work around the house is done and I am in the woods all the time year round. I will go before work after work and any time I have off. Sometimes hiking most time I just sit in the woods and enjoy nature. The Tage give me a chance to get food for the family while doing what I Enjoy. 

[stubby68]

On 12/4/2016 at 0:20 AM, chrisw said:

 

Your correlations aren't even remotely related. I don't need hunting to survive, neither do you. Hunting is a passion that just so happens to also provide me with the reward of venison. The experience is more the reason I hunt. If it weren't for the experience we would all be better off going to the store and buying meat if you're looking at it merely as a price point, not to mention the time spent. My venison probably costs me more than filet mignon if I work up all of my gear, gas, time, tags. In another thread you are complaining that the selective hunters are wiping out the deer population where you hunt, I suggest you sit in a quiet place and truly think about what you're saying... You want to fill every doe tag and also use your buck tag for does and yet it's not you're fault the deer are in decline? It's the guy passing on 1-2yr old bucks that's wiping out the herd? If that's seriously your argument then I'm done because you truly are delusional...

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
 

 

   I never said I or anyone needed to fill tags to survive. I said I would not waste money by not filling tags I paid for. Just like I will not go to a grocery store give them money and not take food home. None of us are better off eating meat from a store. Deer meat is 100% natural and taste so much better.

         As for being delusional. when we took over the property we have now, 400 acres. The deer population was way low. Previous hunters were big buck hunters. The population is getting better every year and we shoot anything 1 1/2 and up.

            My hunting clothes I have had for years same with my guns. I have enough amo for many years. All this stuff has been paid for and more over the years. The only yearly cost I have are the tags and lease. Gas for truck and time for hunting is not a factor because I am out in the woods whenever I am not working. That is hunting or not year round If I was not hunting I would be there anyways. The wild game I take f r on the property easy replace more then enough story bought meat to cover the cost of the lease and tags. Tags and lease together are less the $ 1000 a year and since the cost of the lease is spread over everything I do there the cost for hunting is very small.

             The deer populations in this state have gotten way out of wack over the years. Over the time that this has been has been happening trophy hunting has grown. How can anyone not make the connection. When there were more meat hunters and less trophy hunters the herd was far better shape. Now more trophy hunters and less meat hunters and herd out of wack. 2 + 2 = 4 it adds up.

[sfoulkrod]

I would absolutely hunt in a doe-only area.  I don't know why, but I've always passed on young bucks.  It has less to do with conservation and more to do with empathy.  I mean, what crimes must a man commit to be sentenced to death before he gets laid?  Sorry for being vulgar, but that is exactly what I think when I see a spike in range.  

[chrisw]

   I never said I or anyone needed to fill tags to survive. I said I would not waste money by not filling tags I paid for. Just like I will not go to a grocery store give them money and not take food home. None of us are better off eating meat from a store. Deer meat is 100% natural and taste so much better.
         As for being delusional. when we took over the property we have now, 400 acres. The deer population was way low. Previous hunters were big buck hunters. The population is getting better every year and we shoot anything 1 1/2 and up.
            My hunting clothes I have had for years same with my guns. I have enough amo for many years. All this stuff has been paid for and more over the years. The only yearly cost I have are the tags and lease. Gas for truck and time for hunting is not a factor because I am out in the woods whenever I am not working. That is hunting or not year round If I was not hunting I would be there anyways. The wild game I take f r on the property easy replace more then enough story bought meat to cover the cost of the lease and tags. Tags and lease together are less the $ 1000 a year and since the cost of the lease is spread over everything I do there the cost for hunting is very small.
             The deer populations in this state have gotten way out of wack over the years. Over the time that this has been has been happening trophy hunting has grown. How can anyone not make the connection. When there were more meat hunters and less trophy hunters the herd was far better shape. Now more trophy hunters and less meat hunters and herd out of wack. 2 + 2 = 4 it adds up.

Then enlighten me on how "trophy hunters" threw the deer numbers out of whack. I shoot does 1.5+ yr or older, I pass bucks that are 1.5yrs or less, once they get to 2.5 I'll make the judgement call on whether I'd take that buck. So how does passing up 1.5yr old bucks decimate a deer herd? You aren't making any sense whatsoever. You've already admitted to filling every tag you can get your hands on, regardless of YOUR herd size. I don't want your anecdotal, my 400 acres assessment either. I want you to describe to me, HOW DOES PASSING UP YOUNG BUCKS RUIN A HERD?

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

[Larry]

Hey Doc your right everyone wants a PARTICIPATION TROPHY.

[stubby68]

13 hours ago, chrisw said:

 

Then enlighten me on how "trophy hunters" threw the deer numbers out of whack. I shoot does 1.5+ yr or older, I pass bucks that are 1.5yrs or less, once they get to 2.5 I'll make the judgement call on whether I'd take that buck. So how does passing up 1.5yr old bucks decimate a deer herd? You aren't making any sense whatsoever. You've already admitted to filling every tag you can get your hands on, regardless of YOUR herd size. I don't want your anecdotal, my 400 acres assessment either. I want you to describe to me, HOW DOES PASSING UP YOUNG BUCKS RUIN A HERD?

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
 

 

       It's  called high gradeing. The older bucks do 90% of the breeding. If you kill off all the largest and oldest bucks every year each years selection gets worse and worse. You can not kill off the best of any species every year and expect it to not hurt that populations future. 

              It takes time for mother nature to put the best back into the herd after hunters have killed off all the best. Every year we he guys saying the passed on 10 or 15 little bucks and only saw one or two good bucks. Even trail cam pics show large numbers of small young bucks and only a few big old bucks.Young bucks have less of a chance of getting a doe pregnant then  older ones. Killing off all the older bucks eventuall leads to degrading of the herd. If you have 10 bucks that are under 2 1/2 and 2 that are 4 1/2 and you kill those two older ones you are left with all young bucks. The next year the oldest will be at most 3 1/2 kill them because they are the biggest and best you have left and the next year is worse.

           That 400 acres is not the only land in the area. We have another parcel of 90, a neighbor with 160, another with 78, another with 43, 18,and another 72.That makes 861 acres that the deer numbers were low on after years of high gradeing. Numbers are now on the rise. Before everyone got crazy for antlers the deer numbers were great. After the antler hunting started we saw lower and lower numbers every year. We all went back to hunting the way it was meant to be for a source of food. Numbers are coming back. Before selective hunting things were good during selective things started getting bad Stopped selective hunting things getting better again. Not too hard to see what the problem was.

        A balanced herd has a good selection of young old and middle age deer not just all young because all the biggest oldest have been made into decorations. Leave some of the older ones and take a few young and middle age one .

          I did not start this thread for an argument. With all the talk of AR and last year's two weeks doe only I was curious how many would still hunt if they couldn't hunt bucks.Most would be fine with it because they would have a lot of trophy after the 5 years. How about no bucks ever ? Bet 90 % of you would never hunt NY state again. 

[wolc123]

36 minutes ago, stubby68 said:

       It's  called high gradeing. The older bucks do 90% of the breeding. If you kill off all the largest and oldest bucks every year each years selection gets worse and worse. You can not kill off the best of any species every year and expect it to not hurt that populations future. 

              It takes time for mother nature to put the best back into the herd after hunters have killed off all the best. Every year we he guys saying the passed on 10 or 15 little bucks and only saw one or two good bucks. Even trail cam pics show large numbers of small young bucks and only a few big old bucks.Young bucks have less of a chance of getting a doe pregnant then  older ones. Killing off all the older bucks eventuall leads to degrading of the herd. If you have 10 bucks that are under 2 1/2 and 2 that are 4 1/2 and you kill those two older ones you are left with all young bucks. The next year the oldest will be at most 3 1/2 kill them because they are the biggest and best you have left and the next year is worse.

           That 400 acres is not the only land in the area. We have another parcel of 90, a neighbor with 160, another with 78, another with 43, 18,and another 72.That makes 861 acres that the deer numbers were low on after years of high gradeing. Numbers are now on the rise. Before everyone got crazy for antlers the deer numbers were great. After the antler hunting started we saw lower and lower numbers every year. We all went back to hunting the way it was meant to be for a source of food. Numbers are coming back. Before selective hunting things were good during selective things started getting bad Stopped selective hunting things getting better again. Not too hard to see what the problem was.

        A balanced herd has a good selection of young old and middle age deer not just all young because all the biggest oldest have been made into decorations. Leave some of the older ones and take a few young and middle age one .

          I did not start this thread for an argument. With all the talk of AR and last year's two weeks doe only I was curious how many would still hunt if they couldn't hunt bucks.Most would be fine with it because they would have a lot of trophy after the 5 years. How about no bucks ever ? Bet 90 % of you would never hunt NY state again. 

That right there is as good of an explanation with the problem of "Trophy Hunting" that I have seen.  This site sure seems to be a "target rich environment" when it comes to trophy hunters.  Hopefully a few of them will read this and wise up a bit.  Meat is where it's at, that is why God gave us such fine-eating creatures.

[Curmudgeon]

8 hours ago, stubby68 said:

       It's  called high gradeing. The older bucks do 90% of the breeding. If you kill off all the largest and oldest bucks every year each years selection gets worse and worse. You can not kill off the best of any species every year and expect it to not hurt that populations future. 

              It takes time for mother nature to put the best back into the herd after hunters have killed off all the best. Every year we he guys saying the passed on 10 or 15 little bucks and only saw one or two good bucks. Even trail cam pics show large numbers of small young bucks and only a few big old bucks.Young bucks have less of a chance of getting a doe pregnant then  older ones. Killing off all the older bucks eventuall leads to degrading of the herd. If you have 10 bucks that are under 2 1/2 and 2 that are 4 1/2 and you kill those two older ones you are left with all young bucks. The next year the oldest will be at most 3 1/2 kill them because they are the biggest and best you have left and the next year is worse.

   

 

Realize that "mother nature's" method of determining what is best for the herd is simply by how well it reproduces. Big antlers serve a purpose for the deer. However, if they attract predators (hunters), that may in any way limit reproduction over their lifetime, they are not good for the individual. They become something you don't really want if you are a buck that wants a long life with lots of offspring.

There is a flower in the Himalayas that was gathered for the live plant trade. So many were taken that there was concern it would become extinct. What ended up happening is, the smallest plants were missed by the gatherers and continued to breed. In an incredibly short time, the whole population shrunk. The larger, more desirable plants no longer exist in the wild. There is a population of miniature plants out there.

The major factor limiting deer populations in most of the state is hunting. Thus, the traits that are best for the deer herd - as opposed to a subjective view of large bucks as best - are those that allows the herd to reproduce most successfully under current conditions.

 

[chrisw]

       It's  called high gradeing. The older bucks do 90% of the breeding. If you kill off all the largest and oldest bucks every year each years selection gets worse and worse. You can not kill off the best of any species every year and expect it to not hurt that populations future. 
              It takes time for mother nature to put the best back into the herd after hunters have killed off all the best. Every year we he guys saying the passed on 10 or 15 little bucks and only saw one or two good bucks. Even trail cam pics show large numbers of small young bucks and only a few big old bucks.Young bucks have less of a chance of getting a doe pregnant then  older ones. Killing off all the older bucks eventuall leads to degrading of the herd. If you have 10 bucks that are under 2 1/2 and 2 that are 4 1/2 and you kill those two older ones you are left with all young bucks. The next year the oldest will be at most 3 1/2 kill them because they are the biggest and best you have left and the next year is worse.
           That 400 acres is not the only land in the area. We have another parcel of 90, a neighbor with 160, another with 78, another with 43, 18,and another 72.That makes 861 acres that the deer numbers were low on after years of high gradeing. Numbers are now on the rise. Before everyone got crazy for antlers the deer numbers were great. After the antler hunting started we saw lower and lower numbers every year. We all went back to hunting the way it was meant to be for a source of food. Numbers are coming back. Before selective hunting things were good during selective things started getting bad Stopped selective hunting things getting better again. Not too hard to see what the problem was.
        A balanced herd has a good selection of young old and middle age deer not just all young because all the biggest oldest have been made into decorations. Leave some of the older ones and take a few young and middle age one .
          I did not start this thread for an argument. With all the talk of AR and last year's two weeks doe only I was curious how many would still hunt if they couldn't hunt bucks.Most would be fine with it because they would have a lot of trophy after the 5 years. How about no bucks ever ? Bet 90 % of you would never hunt NY state again. 

I'm bowing out. I can't have a logical debate with someone who doesn't understand the topic.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

[stubby68]

12 hours ago, chrisw said:

 

 

I'm bowing out. I can't have a logical debate with someone who doesn't understand the topic.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
 

 

 

            Doesn't understand the topic ? I started it. You wanted me to enlighten you on how trophy hunting and always passing young bucks hurts themail herd. I did that. Just because I prove my side and you have not proven yours I am the one who does not understand? Typical trophy for everything I do mentality. You are bowing out because you have no facts other then those from controlled studies to back up your trophy hunting. Surprise controlled studies are set up to show the results the people conducting the studies want.

           I asked how many would stop hunting if they could not shoot buckd. Turns out a lot . It separates the hunters from the interior decorators.

[stubby68]

12 hours ago, Curmudgeon said:

Realize that "mother nature's" method of determining what is best for the herd is simply by how well it reproduces. Big antlers serve a purpose for the deer. However, if they attract predators (hunters), that may in any way limit reproduction over their lifetime, they are not good for the individual. They become something you don't really want if you are a buck that wants a long life with lots of offspring.

There is a flower in the Himalayas that was gathered for the live plant trade. So many were taken that there was concern it would become extinct. What ended up happening is, the smallest plants were missed by the gatherers and continued to breed. In an incredibly short time, the whole population shrunk. The larger, more desirable plants no longer exist in the wild. There is a population of miniature plants out there.

The major factor limiting deer populations in most of the state is hunting. Thus, the traits that are best for the deer herd - as opposed to a subjective view of large bucks as best - are those that allows the herd to reproduce most successfully under current conditions.

 

            Are you agreeing with my post? What you wrote points exactly to what I am saying. Mother nature decided that to survive the had to be fewer and less desirable of a species. Not because of her doing but because of humans high gradeing. Those humans stopped and the plant survives. How ever with trophy hunting the humans just start taking what was once considered the less desirable as there trophy. That is the problem.