SB 4739 - Establishes the yearling buck protection program

[chas0218]

10 hours ago, tuckersdaddy said:

Heres the perfect reason for no ARs... I bought my licsens... And I dont need you or any poltician telling me that a 4 point isnt a trophy. If rack hunting is YOUR thing then go do it. Get off your butt, out of your stand and go find them. Big Bucks are there... State land, privite, doesnt matter. Dont cut my choices because you want 20 bulwinkles in front of your stand everyday. If you prefer to hunt in other states by...go. NY offers challenges you wont find any where else. Want to get lost for a week and possibly not see anything try out the ADk. Want to hunt farmland? Buy a lease in western NY. Want tags filled try CNY stateland... But you wouldnt know that sitting inyour stand blaming gun hunters and lack of ARs for not seeing Bullwinkle.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 

I never said there aren't big bucks, I don't know where you got the notion I expect one behind every tree and they should just walk right past me. If you are a good hunter you get close to the game undetected so for me that means up a tree with them walking under me. I still hunt and stalk with a gun but still prefer to setup on game and ambush them. I hunt for meat BUT I also do so by taking mature deer whether it is a buck or doe. I refuse to shoot something for meat that will not give me 50lbs.+ I would rather make my time worth while I'm not out there just to kill. I don't need to hunt state land between my family and my wife's we have 3 different tracts of land scattered over central NY. If you're not looking for bullwinkle feel free to shoot that doe you passed 4 times already. You make the argument you don't need anyone telling you what deer to shoot but still shoot yearlings. In that case you obviously do need someone to tell you what to shoot because you can't make the conscious decision to pass on a young juvenile deer.

8 hours ago, Death From Above said:

 

And I think your post is an example of exactly why we need ARs in NY.

You think that a supporter of antler restrictions supports the policy just so that YOU can’t shoot year old bucks, and so that HE/SHE can shoot more big bucks.  I say that you are missing the big picture. 

The DEC already regulates what we can harvest as hunters, and what we cannot.  If you aren’t sure what I mean, then please look at your tags closely and you will notice some are for antlered deer and some are for antlerless.   They don’t regulate the ratio of sex harvest based on what they think we want to shoot as hunters, but rather it is an attempt to maintain a healthy herd.  We need bucks and does to make fawns, right?  Did you ever think that through ARs they might be attempting to control what portion of the buck harvest is yearling bucks to keep a more natural structured deer herd?  Maybe AR in the state’s eyes is not about keeping you from shooting all those little bucks you so badly want to be able to kill, but maybe it is about trying to help restore the age structure in the deer herd to a more natural age range.  Do you think it is possible that we as NY hunters can influence the natural proportion of younger vs. mature bucks that survive year to year?  I think we do.

For the record, I hate when the government intrudes more and more in our lives in an attempt to help us live our lives in a way they feel might be better.  But maybe, just maybe, this scenario isn’t an attempt to help you live your hunting life, but help some deer live longer lives instead…therefor giving us a more natural age structure in our deer herd.   When I read posts like yours, and then I read about the DEC trying to “educate” NY hunters about how letting young bucks go will help the deer herd as well as potentially improving our hunting, I realize that asking hunters in this state to understand this and then implement it will likely never work.  IF the DEC really believes that our herd can be benefited by protecting young bucks, then they shouldn’t ask, they should act.  So many other states show through harvest regulations (in many different ways) that they feel this is important.  Unfortunately, sometimes we evaluate the success of measures such as these simply by looking whether we are able to shoot bigger bucks.  

I said in a post above, I respect opposing views.  However, its hard to hear all this me, me, me as the only reason why we shouldn’t consider implementing a policy that might improve the deer, deer, deer. 

Lastly, can’t help but also comment on your “get off your butt and go find them comment” concerning shooting bigger bucks.  We both know that if that was remotely true that you would be shooting big bucks each year, and you’d have no reason to shoot those little ones.  Then we wouldn’t even be having this conversation, would we?

I couldn't agree more. It isn't about killing "trophies" it's about better genetics and healthier deer. AR's is one of a few ways of protecting the younger generation of deer and ensuring they will be there for years to come.

 

[chas0218]

On 3/7/2017 at 8:15 PM, gjs4 said:

The biggest, if not only reason I support ARs is it should force gun hunters to validate their targets before shooting. Then again, I don't think it will ever happen and know our buck maturity won't change until there is a huge overhaul of the season structure/length and the dec has an actual idea of what is alive and killed annually.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is a plus side to it. Maybe not an intended result but a pro.

[chas0218]

8 hours ago, tuckersdaddy said:

No I understand. Im not sure you do. This guy scored a 152 and was shot.... with a gun on state land. He was watched from mid july and pursued all of bow season and into the 3rd week of regular season.... He was vary smart and i got vary lucky... Now before you go on about this could be the norm., What makes him special is the amount of time, energy, and patients that went in to taking him. They exsist if you get out of your stand. At this point in life I do not have the time for that type of pursuit nor the desire to put another on the wall, but still enjoy time afield with family and friends during the season... normally the only time I get to see some. Now to have someone dictate to me what the succsessfull hunt will be is unacceptable. If I choose to take a 4point then thats what I put my tag on, If I let him pass its my tag I eat. This whole notion that we can make it better and it will be the best for everyone is getting old. Now when I tag a 4 point, the small 8 becomes a bigger 10... Now to assume that every 1 1/12 yr old buck is shot during regular season sounds like the typical bow hunter response. Its absurd to think that all of them are being taken before they mature... If they did how did this one come about? Now the other part of the age equation I never here from all this AR crap is what about Does that are not 3 yrs or older being taken. All this nonsence is about a group who want to attemp to adjust the hurd to thier style of hunting rather then adjust your style of huntimg to the hurd.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 

That is a nice buck but like mentioned by another member I have shot one that was a touch bigger (161" gross) from my treestand but also with a gun. I didn't need to "get off my butt" but choose to shoot him while standing on the platform of my stand so does that count? You stated you don't hear about doe being taken over the 3 year old mark but I have to believe that there are more doe taken at the 3 year old mark than bucks because there are so many hunters out there shooting that yearling sporting that white gold all of us AR guys are supposedly trying to protect and get 200" bucks around every corner. Your argument lacks facts and research. I'm not sure how many mature doe I have shot over the years I never had them aged but I would venture to guess there were more mature doe than juvenile/yearlings. Taking the largest doe with the most mature features leads me to think they are older. Not to mention some barely had any teeth left.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

1 hour ago, chas0218 said:

 

I couldn't agree more. It isn't about killing "trophies" it's about better genetics and healthier deer. AR's is one of a few ways of protecting the younger generation of deer and ensuring they will be there for years to come.

 

AR's do nothing for genetics and trying to in a wild herd is a pipe dream. 

[Death From Above]

27 minutes ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

AR's do nothing for genetics and trying to in a wild herd is a pipe dream. 

While some might argue with this point, I won't.  I do believe there are plenty of other reasons that ARs (if followed)would certainly improve the health of a deer herd.  But genetics is not one of those reasons.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

11 minutes ago, Death From Above said:

While some might argue with this point, I won't.  I do believe there are plenty of other reasons that ARs (if followed)would certainly improve the health of a deer herd.  But genetics is not one of those reasons.

I also see the benefit. Just not the legislative mandate approach. 

[grampy]

To some hunters, a deer doesn't even need antlers to be a 'trophy'. Others may consider a yearling spike to be a 'trophy'. And another hunter may only consider shooting the biggest mature buck he can find as a 'trophy'. None of these hunters are 'wrong'! Beauty is in the eyes of the individual hunter. We just do not need more legislation to tell ANY hunter what to shoot and what constitutes, as a 'trophy'. Buy the tag, go out and shoot what makes "YOU" happy! Hunting can be as easy, or challenging as you want to make it! And everyone should make their own choice! What is right for me, may not be for some other hunter. We are all in this together. And I refuse to force my way of hunting on someone else. JMO............

[tuckersdaddy]

So let me understand your point of view here Death.... You feel there should be a balance of age structure within the hurd.. And you would be right saying there is some science to that. Now lets look at some numbers.... With the over populationof most areas in the southren zone, west of the catskills, if all of the the 1 1/2 are left 'to grow' and all the deer harvested are 2 1/2 wont that lop side the count to the young deer? Long term the numbers would swing but would increase the hurd total numbers in areas that are already 25 plus a sqaure mile? Now population decrease will do more to increase hurd heath then ARs. In areas that currently have ARs in NY have population in the 15 to 20 per mile which can have a balance effect with ARs by allowing the hurd to grow above the natural loss line. The state dripped the ball in the late 70's and 80's by allowing the deer popultion to grow without looking at the effects of decreased ag, and decreased hunters. So lets some this up by saying me taking a 4pt bennifits the hurd more by decreasing the total number rather then eating a tag waiting on bullwinkle. When the state has hurd numbers in check we can come back to this discussion but until then ARs are not the answer.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[moog5050]

6 hours ago, grampy said:

To some hunters, a deer doesn't even need antlers to be a 'trophy'. Others may consider a yearling spike to be a 'trophy'. And another hunter may only consider shooting the biggest mature buck he can find as a 'trophy'. None of these hunters are 'wrong'! Beauty is in the eyes of the individual hunter. We just do not need more legislation to tell ANY hunter what to shoot and what constitutes, as a 'trophy'. Buy the tag, go out and shoot what makes "YOU" happy! Hunting can be as easy, or challenging as you want to make it! And everyone should make their own choice! What is right for me, may not be for some other hunter. We are all in this together. And I refuse to force my way of hunting on someone else. JMO............

Well said!

[Death From Above]

3 hours ago, tuckersdaddy said:

So let me understand your point of view here Death.... You feel there should be a balance of age structure within the hurd.. And you would be right saying there is some science to that. Now lets look at some numbers.... With the over populationof most areas in the southren zone, west of the catskills, if all of the the 1 1/2 are left 'to grow' and all the deer harvested are 2 1/2 wont that lop side the count to the young deer? Long term the numbers would swing but would increase the hurd total numbers in areas that are already 25 plus a sqaure mile? Now population decrease will do more to increase hurd heath then ARs. In areas that currently have ARs in NY have population in the 15 to 20 per mile which can have a balance effect with ARs by allowing the hurd to grow above the natural loss line. The state dripped the ball in the late 70's and 80's by allowing the deer popultion to grow without looking at the effects of decreased ag, and decreased hunters. So lets some this up by saying me taking a 4pt bennifits the hurd more by decreasing the total number rather then eating a tag waiting on bullwinkle. When the state has hurd numbers in check we can come back to this discussion but until then ARs are not the answer.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 

 

You are correct, I would love to see our state make an attempt to balance the deer herd’s age structure, especially when it concerns bucks.  However, I will make no attempt to suggest that AR along would do anything to balance the overall number of deer versus deer habitat.  AR would very likely create a spike in deer numbers the following year, unless the state also made an attempt to balance the overall population with a higher take of does.  I am assuming that Pennsylvania’s introduction of AR that coincided with the dreaded HR (herd reduction) was an attempt to do this very thing…take more does out to provide room for all the extra bucks that potentially live another year.   I know that HR was in no way implemented for this reason in PA, but I would assume it was a hoped for benefit to the AR addition.

In the areas of NY that I hunt (6G and 7J) I would guess that the buck to doe ratio could really use some help, and AR would address that if the DEC made an attempt to address the doe harvest as well.  I imagine that the majority of the southern tier sees an abnormally low buck to doe ratio as well, but I can’t verify it.  I agree with you though that while it might spike the deer numbers initially, it would level back out, especially in a state where hunters are able to harvest two bucks a season.  However, by your suggestion that your harvest of a four point helps the overall health of the herd due to the potential of high numbers, then I could suggest the same about someone who jacks them with a spotlight at night.  If you'd like to rationalize those two on the same level so be it, but you are talking about HR goals, not AR goals.  The post you wrote above speaks to deer numbers, not age dispersal.  Those are two different topics.

I am talking about utilizing Antler Restrictions as a means to lesson stress on the deer herd, winterkill on bucks, and decrease the number of fawns born later than the optimal time for survival till their first birthday.  AR has the potential to help these issues, along with other benefits.  Hunting in a more balanced woods is another perk, and it’s a completely different experience IMO in states with more balanced herds when compared to NY.  My favorite part of hunting isn’t the kill, personally.  I like watching wildlife and being in their proximity, while trying to match wits, if you will, to harvest a targeted animal.  Aside from just a healthier herd, more bucks and more experienced bucks just bring a different game to the table.  IMO.

[tuckersdaddy]

 

You are correct, I would love to see our state make an attempt to balance the deer herd’s age structure, especially when it concerns bucks.  However, I will make no attempt to suggest that AR along would do anything to balance the overall number of deer versus deer habitat.  AR would very likely create a spike in deer numbers the following year, unless the state also made an attempt to balance the overall population with a higher take of does.  I am assuming that Pennsylvania’s introduction of AR that coincided with the dreaded HR (herd reduction) was an attempt to do this very thing…take more does out to provide room for all the extra bucks that potentially live another year.   I know that HR was in no way implemented for this reason in PA, but I would assume it was a hoped for benefit to the AR addition.

In the areas of NY that I hunt (6G and 7J) I would guess that the buck to doe ratio could really use some help, and AR would address that if the DEC made an attempt to address the doe harvest as well.  I imagine that the majority of the southern tier sees an abnormally low buck to doe ratio as well, but I can’t verify it.  I agree with you though that while it might spike the deer numbers initially, it would level back out, especially in a state where hunters are able to harvest two bucks a season.  However, by your suggestion that your harvest of a four point helps the overall health of the herd due to the potential of high numbers, then I could suggest the same about someone who jacks them with a spotlight at night.  If you'd like to rationalize those two on the same level so be it, but you are talking about HR goals, not AR goals.  The post you wrote above speaks to deer numbers, not age dispersal.  Those are two different topics.

I am talking about utilizing Antler Restrictions as a means to lesson stress on the deer herd, winterkill on bucks, and decrease the number of fawns born later than the optimal time for survival till their first birthday.  AR has the potential to help these issues, along with other benefits.  Hunting in a more balanced woods is another perk, and it’s a completely different experience IMO in states with more balanced herds when compared to NY.  My favorite part of hunting isn’t the kill, personally.  I like watching wildlife and being in their proximity, while trying to match wits, if you will, to harvest a targeted animal.  Aside from just a healthier herd, more bucks and more experienced bucks just bring a different game to the table.  IMO.

Jacking deer at night is a valuable tool to reduce total numbers.... local gov. does it all to often here. Now back to the nubers.. Where I hunt 7m 7r, dmps are given out like condoms in a gay bar... but it hasnt fixed the population issue.. I dont belive it has even stabilized it. Add AR would further skew this. To further see this look at the inverse in i belive 4s.. the area around Rosco ny.. For many years we had around 200 acres of family land to hunt, all fallow farm land. The deer population was very low. Dmps non exsistant even to land owners. It wasnt until ARs came into effect that the population began to rise (atleast in that area) . The whole fact we focus on antler, antler antler is a pile of crap. The focus should be on the whole hurd. Ive seen 1 1/2yrs with unusually large racks, and ive seen spikes that were older then dirt, so to plan a managment stratagy around the numbers of points just dosnt cut it espcially when it collides with more presssing hurd issues. So we get back to the orginal point... If you choose to let it walk, or you choose to harvest... its your choice and shouldnt be told you were right or wrong.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[Death From Above]

9 hours ago, grampy said:

To some hunters, a deer doesn't even need antlers to be a 'trophy'. Others may consider a yearling spike to be a 'trophy'. And another hunter may only consider shooting the biggest mature buck he can find as a 'trophy'. None of these hunters are 'wrong'! Beauty is in the eyes of the individual hunter. We just do not need more legislation to tell ANY hunter what to shoot and what constitutes, as a 'trophy'. Buy the tag, go out and shoot what makes "YOU" happy! Hunting can be as easy, or challenging as you want to make it! And everyone should make their own choice! What is right for me, may not be for some other hunter. We are all in this together. And I refuse to force my way of hunting on someone else. JMO............

 

Not attempting to be critical here, but can I just ask why you feel that the addition of antler restrictions, either by the DEC or some sort of Legislative Regulation, would be addressing what a hunter might feel is a trophy or not?  Sure, AR could restrict a hunter from shooting a deer they might feel is a trophy, but it isn’t defining the animal as worthy to be considered as a trophy or not.

I am not a big turkey hunter, and I have no idea if you are.  But if the DEC came out and said that we needed to increase the number of males in the turkey population for the health of our turkeys in this state, would it drive this much controversy?  If they limited the take to one bird each spring, and said the beard had to be six inches or longer, do you think it would create the same type of argument about not being able to harvest “trophy toms”?   It would likely increase the number of gobblers out there, which it was designed to do, and not be put in to shame hunters for shooting jakes.  Would it generate a phobia against people who prefer not to shoot jakes and wait for a mature gobbler?   Is this topic driven too much on this site by people harassing others for shooting small bucks?

When it comes down to it, if the Department of Environmental Conservation decided that it is within their role to protect a portion of the deer population for the good of the state’s herd, is that a bad thing if there is legitimate merit behind it?  Or is it more important that they let hunters shoot whatever they like so that they can claim it as a trophy? 

[grampy]

17 minutes ago, Death From Above said:

 

Not attempting to be critical here, but can I just ask why you feel that the addition of antler restrictions, either by the DEC or some sort of Legislative Regulation, would be addressing what a hunter might feel is a trophy or not?  Sure, AR could restrict a hunter from shooting a deer they might feel is a trophy, but it isn’t defining the animal as worthy to be considered as a trophy or not.

I am not a big turkey hunter, and I have no idea if you are.  But if the DEC came out and said that we needed to increase the number of males in the turkey population for the health of our turkeys in this state, would it drive this much controversy?  If they limited the take to one bird each spring, and said the beard had to be six inches or longer, do you think it would create the same type of argument about not being able to harvest “trophy toms”?   It would likely increase the number of gobblers out there, which it was designed to do, and not be put in to shame hunters for shooting jakes.  Would it generate a phobia against people who prefer not to shoot jakes and wait for a mature gobbler?   Is this topic driven too much on this site by people harassing others for shooting small bucks?

When it comes down to it, if the Department of Environmental Conservation decided that it is within their role to protect a portion of the deer population for the good of the state’s herd, is that a bad thing if there is legitimate merit behind it?  Or is it more important that they let hunters shoot whatever they like so that they can claim it as a trophy? 

Simply put, my point is, hunter access and poor management of DMP's in NY are the biggest detriment to the deer herd. Not the hunter that just wants meat in the freezer. Or the hunter that will hold out all season, if need be, to shoot a 150 inch five year old buck. What I'm saying is the choice should be with the hunter. Not by someone sitting behind a desk in Albany, who has never hunted in their life. Open up more areas for hunter access in high density spots. Adjust the DMP's on a more local level to coincide with the deer population for that area. Perhaps even adjust season dates. But don't tell me what to shoot! And I've always felt that EVERY deer is a trophy. 

[Death From Above]

1 hour ago, tuckersdaddy said:

Jacking deer at night is a valuable tool to reduce total numbers.... local gov. does it all to often here. Now back to the nubers.. Where I hunt 7m 7r, dmps are given out like condoms in a gay bar... but it hasnt fixed the population issue.. I dont belive it has even stabilized it. Add AR would further skew this. To further see this look at the inverse in i belive 4s.. the area around Rosco ny.. For many years we had around 200 acres of family land to hunt, all fallow farm land. The deer population was very low. Dmps non exsistant even to land owners. It wasnt until ARs came into effect that the population began to rise (atleast in that area) . The whole fact we focus on antler, antler antler is a pile of crap. The focus should be on the whole hurd. Ive seen 1 1/2yrs with unusually large racks, and ive seen spikes that were older then dirt, so to plan a managment stratagy around the numbers of points just dosnt cut it espcially when it collides with more presssing hurd issues. So we get back to the orginal point... If you choose to let it walk, or you choose to harvest... its your choice and shouldnt be told you were right or wrong.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 

 

I won’t try to hold a conversation about the population numbers in your area, but I wish I had similar complaints.  I’d say that our numbers here in 6G are lower over the past couple years compared to what they were several years back.  I hope they rebound, but its hard to do that in an area that sports an 8 week long gun season and the possibility of tough winters.  However, using high population numbers as a reason to ignore another potential problem in the herd isn’t helpful either.  It is not addressing the problem of overharvesting young bucks.   Did I understand you correctly when you suggested that AR caused the over population in 4S?  You said that there were hardly any deer and just because they implemented AR the numbers went off the chart?  So you must have like a 5 buck to 1 doe ratio?

Once again, this back and forth between the two of us has become about the overall herd numbers and not AR.  Saying that ARs cannot be considered due to high overall herd numbers is little confusing.  You are compounding the problem that you seem to be most concerned about.  Let more bucks live, they survive longer and even the herd out, meanwhile you shoot more does to fill the empty space in your freezer where the bucks were stored previously.  This way the herd gets healthier in overall numbers (your larger concern which is solved as less does = less fawns), and meanwhile it improves the buck to doe ratio while allowing for a more natural aged herd (my hope).  We both win. 

However, I have a sneaking suspicion that the herd is not what you are concerned about.  You just want to shoot whatever you want to regardless of the potential impact that has on the deer herd.  That is fine, I understand that, I get it, you have made your point that your most important aspect of deer management is the management that you get to perform on your own terms.  I said in my first post that I respect other’s opinions, and that includes yours.  

[Death From Above]

33 minutes ago, grampy said:

Simply put, my point is, hunter access and poor management of DMP's in NY are the biggest detriment to the deer herd. Not the hunter that just wants meat in the freezer. Or the hunter that will hold out all season, if need be, to shoot a 150 inch five year old buck. What I'm saying is the choice should be with the hunter. Not by someone sitting behind a desk in Albany, who has never hunted in their life. Open up more areas for hunter access in high density spots. Adjust the DMP's on a more local level to coincide with the deer population for that area. Perhaps even adjust season dates. But don't tell me what to shoot! And I've always felt that EVERY deer is a trophy. 

 

Cannot argue with any of those points, and likely agree with all of what you said.  Especially the part about every deer being a trophy.

However, it is my hope that if for some unforeseeable reason ARs are in fact implemented in NYS, that it won’t drive this argument about the trophy hunter being the root evil as the sole cause of the decision.  I also understand what you mean when you don’t want your hunting privileges dictated by non-hunting diplomats.  But if, just possibly, there is some genuine and conservation minded reasoning behind such regulations, I hope that you might consider it was done due to the state trying to better manage the deer herd and not just noisy trophy hunters pushing an agenda.

[tuckersdaddy]

 

I won’t try to hold a conversation about the population numbers in your area, but I wish I had similar complaints.  I’d say that our numbers here in 6G are lower over the past couple years compared to what they were several years back.  I hope they rebound, but its hard to do that in an area that sports an 8 week long gun season and the possibility of tough winters.  However, using high population numbers as a reason to ignore another potential problem in the herd isn’t helpful either.  It is not addressing the problem of overharvesting young bucks.   Did I understand you correctly when you suggested that AR caused the over population in 4S?  You said that there were hardly any deer and just because they implemented AR the numbers went off the chart?  So you must have like a 5 buck to 1 doe ratio?

Once again, this back and forth between the two of us has become about the overall herd numbers and not AR.  Saying that ARs cannot be considered due to high overall herd numbers is little confusing.  You are compounding the problem that you seem to be most concerned about.  Let more bucks live, they survive longer and even the herd out, meanwhile you shoot more does to fill the empty space in your freezer where the bucks were stored previously.  This way the herd gets healthier in overall numbers (your larger concern which is solved as less does = less fawns), and meanwhile it improves the buck to doe ratio while allowing for a more natural aged herd (my hope).  We both win. 

However, I have a sneaking suspicion that the herd is not what you are concerned about.  You just want to shoot whatever you want to regardless of the potential impact that has on the deer herd.  That is fine, I understand that, I get it, you have made your point that your most important aspect of deer management is the management that you get to perform on your own terms.  I said in my first post that I respect other’s opinions, and that includes yours.  

concerning i belive its 4s.... yes AR is or was at the time, herd Numbers. No Dmps.. only 1/2 the avalible deer can be taken.. of the other half about half of thise can be taken.... and theyre the older smarter crafty deer... So yes AR can be used to reduce deer take.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[Larry]

Seeing a fairly large group of you want wildlife management though legislation let’s try this you get your buck protection passed ok. The next group wants legislation to ban all lead based ammunition. The next group wants legislation to ban cottontail rabbit hunting because the New England cottontail is threaten and may become endangered and hunters can’t tell the difference between the two. Next group wants legislation to ban all bear hunting in the state. It can go on and on. So if that’s what you want I hope you get it. then who are you going to whine to.

[NFA-ADK]

22 hours ago, grampy said:

To some hunters, a deer doesn't even need antlers to be a 'trophy'. Others may consider a yearling spike to be a 'trophy'. And another hunter may only consider shooting the biggest mature buck he can find as a 'trophy'. None of these hunters are 'wrong'! Beauty is in the eyes of the individual hunter. We just do not need more legislation to tell ANY hunter what to shoot and what constitutes, as a 'trophy'. Buy the tag, go out and shoot what makes "YOU" happy! Hunting can be as easy, or challenging as you want to make it! And everyone should make their own choice! What is right for me, may not be for some other hunter. We are all in this together. And I refuse to force my way of hunting on someone else. JMO............

To me this sums it up.  I do not want to take opportunities away from my fellow hunter and more regulations will do this along with hunters leaving dead deer in the woods that are not "Legal".  If AR is implemented over larger area's of the state it will make identification of your prey a must making it safer for all.  Simply put that is all legislation will care about a safer hunting environment where everyone identifies prey before pulling the trigger with no adverse affect on deer with the exception of more doe take and better balanced buck to doe ratio.

[growalot]

DEC. announced last year was the safest year..even with all the deaths.

[Doc]

23 hours ago, grampy said:

To some hunters, a deer doesn't even need antlers to be a 'trophy'. Others may consider a yearling spike to be a 'trophy'. And another hunter may only consider shooting the biggest mature buck he can find as a 'trophy'. None of these hunters are 'wrong'! Beauty is in the eyes of the individual hunter. We just do not need more legislation to tell ANY hunter what to shoot and what constitutes, as a 'trophy'. Buy the tag, go out and shoot what makes "YOU" happy! Hunting can be as easy, or challenging as you want to make it! And everyone should make their own choice! What is right for me, may not be for some other hunter. We are all in this together. And I refuse to force my way of hunting on someone else. JMO............

This is the exact sentiment that I have everytime the hunting elitists among us try to force further regs and restrictions on the sport. Right now the individual hunter is the master of his own needs, with very good control of customizing the activity to suit their own abilities, wants and needs and reasons to stay in the sport. That is the best of all worlds for keeping hunting a solid well-participated activity that remains healthy off into the future. We don't need anymore of this regulating hunters out of participation.

But is it the best biological approach for the critters living  in the habitat? Well, as a matter of fact, I believe it is. Already we may be seeing previews of what can happen when hunter numbers dwindle and hunter populations and participation becomes so small that hunters are an insufficient force unable to adequately control deer populations in some areas. I don't think we need that trend to continue if we are going to stand a chance of remaining the prime deer population control off into the future.

[ManicOutdoorsman92]

To me this sums it up.  I do not want to take opportunities away from my fellow hunter and more regulations will do this along with hunters leaving dead deer in the woods that are not "Legal".  If AR is implemented over larger area's of the state it will make identification of your prey a must making it safer for all.  Simply put that is all legislation will care about a safer hunting environment where everyone identifies prey before pulling the trigger with no adverse affect on deer with the exception of more doe take and better balanced buck to doe ratio.

Or there will alot of miskaken yearlings shot. I shot small spike last year, i let it pass by thinking it was a young buck being all by its self, he saw me move and stared at me for the longest time all i saw were ears. He turned back and i drew and took the shot well i still could, and this was a bow. There will be mistaken deer and deer left in the woods because its not a legal kill. Theres so many issues that arise with ARs my biggest one is the fact that it affects a large majority of N.Y. hunters that dont support them, while AR supporters have the loudest voice they arent the majority. As to everbodys take on herd numbers, theres a hell of a lot at play there and its not as simple as "ARs will make a healthier herd", thats just nonsense. And as, someone stated before trying to manage a wild herd is a pipe dream

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[Death From Above]

Not sure that any one said that ARs would completely solve all the herd problems, as overall numbers are a bigger part of the health issue.  AR would have a very positive influence on the health of our bucks and also of our fawns.  If you need to hear the reasoning behind that I can elaborate.  To say that it is “non-sense” is just shallow and an un-informed observation.  Whether or not I am in support of AR or not, I can’t ignore that there is a benefit caused by having them on our deer herd.  To deny it is silly.  I understand that it may not be important to you as choosing what deer you want to be able to harvest, but it would be nice for the deer.

I’m not trying to offend the original poster who said it, or the person who applauded the statement after, but to say that “managing a wild deer herd is a pipedream” is simply stupid.  Why do you think we have regulations from the DEC?  I’m not saying they do it well by any means.  Do you think that other states are incapable of managing their deer herd?

Do you think that deer in other states who have a much “healthier herd” are self-regulating?  Are they smarter across state lines?  Are NY deer missing that self-regulating gene?  Simply put, there are tons of states who regulate their deer herd better than NY.  In fact, does NY do it better than any other state that has whitetails?  I bet you would find it hard to find someone with a biologist’s background outside of this state to say NY does it better than some other state. 

We can disagree, sure I get that.  But to discount simple science and reasoning and say it’s a pipedream is not logical, IMO.  Glad that most other states didn’t get that memo.

For the record, I am not an overall “science guy.”  I am one of those crazy creation – not evolution people, and I don’t buy into all the Global Warning stuff.  Unrelated I know, but I don’t want to come across as “science is everything”.  I just believe in this case there are benefits to following the science.

[NFA-ADK]

The only thing we have some control over is population and even that is a pipe dream as a harsh winter will self correct any population issues along with disease.  If you think we can control those two factors then yes we can control many things, until then Mother nature is the true manager of the animals.

[Death From Above]

14 minutes ago, NFA-ADK said:

The only thing we have some control over is population and even that is a pipe dream as a harsh winter will self correct any population issues along with disease.  If you think we can control those two factors then yes we can control many things, until then Mother nature is the true manager of the animals.

Oh I agree for sure.  But we can do a better job of managing what we have so that Mother Nature has to do less of the managing you speak of.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

24 minutes ago, Death From Above said:

I’m not trying to offend the original poster who said it, or the person who applauded the statement after, but to say that “managing a wild deer herd is a pipedream” is simply stupid.  Why do you think we have regulations from the DEC?  I’m not saying they do it well by any means. 

 

That was made in reference to managing the GENETICS of a wild deer population and if you think that is possible you are misinformed.