SB 4739 - Establishes the yearling buck protection program

[dbHunterNY]

I'm sure dbhunter will now come back and still say the original proposal wasn't some poorly crafted piece of crap. This amendment is just proof that an idiot wrote it or that the authors half-assed it from the get-go.

Still have that ego? I said it before and I'll say it again. Where this originated from is legit and from the very scientific data you've posted. Once the legislative process is started though it can get messed up in a hurry and original intent lost. This is growing legs whether you think it's half-assed or not. As an educated individual I think you should call your reps with constructive criticism or maybe even ideas to make it less half-assed. I did and will continue to do so.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[phade]

NYHC is valid and close to 20k members. Closed group - you can't see the page detail w/o joining I think.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Raymond Purdy]

14 minutes ago, growalot said:

Now Mr. Purdy...you seem to have a problem replying to the simplest things without deflection....See I understand ,because from your posts you must have to duck and weave a lot. Though when you have this defense strategy spill over into the simplest of subjects and questions ...Well it spot lights certain over all flaws you are harboring...

It was a simple request to have you give a link to the site YOU referenced...you dodged that...

Then when given a link found, You attempt to mock the find. I believe I am hearing the faint sound of the chain being pulled and the water swirling on your credibility.

I answered the link question as its on FB once again. Accusing this to be a ponzi type scheme needs no further response. I Love NY 

[growalot]

Why thank you Phade...I bet that wasn't difficult to answer. Though you have shown more coherence in responding to peoples questions...

[phade]

Still have that ego? I said it before and I'll say it again. Where this originated from is legit and from the very scientific data you've posted. Once the legislative process is started though it can get messed up in a hurry and original intent lost. This is growing legs whether you think it's half-assed or not. As an educated individual I think you should call your reps with constructive criticism or maybe even ideas to make it less half-assed. I did and will continue to do so.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

If this was truly based on legit scientific data, the Swiss cheese listing of WMUs wouldn't have taken place. In or out - black and white.

This is political jockeying in an area a legislator is using for their own gain. Plain and simple. The biological basis for this is second to the retention of office.

Regardless of where anyone stands on this issue - it was half assed from the get go and is simply demonstrative of the problem NY has. People like you who want to rationalize any semblance of this process and being beneficial is exactly the problem.

I have a question for you - did you write your legislator and ask that they put forth proposal to remove legislators from the biological management of the resource beyond funding/budgetary allocations and czar/appointment?

I did.

Anything else you provided to your legislator only supports the legislators being involved in decisions they should not be involved in. Period.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[growalot]

I do believe I may have pitched a bit too close to a nerve with that Ponzi reference...very telling indeed....

[dbHunterNY]

Is it possible to get a source that dosent have a vested intrest in the outcome?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

QDMA as an entity is very much not vested in this antler restriction legislation and lobbying, despite some volunteers who wear that hat are. The article isn't BS.
From a very simple perspective if we all stopped shooting deer and let nature solely do the management then would there be an age structure, young to mature? The answer is yes, so why is it so hard to believe it's something that's good for deer and not just a people driven idea?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[dbHunterNY]

don't know where he got his numbers from. the survey has no numbers like on it.
Here is another thing you have to ask is where did these state senators come up with this plan it wasn’t from the DEC . it had to be handed to them word for word.

His numbers came from the same source that the one you posted got them plus other surveys done by Cornell on behalf of DEC. So who's write and who's wrong? Haha

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[growalot]

Do you want to play the picture game now? Ok so you show a clear spike...is this the deer your hoping to same with 3- 4 pts to a side?  This makes me laugh and sad at the same time...Do you have an understanding of what a young buck is? pics below...young buck and some even with a 4pt rule would be shot..these got passes but force a person to wait and count...your guaranteeing human nature to prevail. They will be shot.

Edited March 21, 2017 by growalot

[stubborn1VT]

So 60-70% of folks who take surveys and/or belong to hunting clubs want AR?  What does that prove?  The whole thing reeks of self interest cloaked in biology.  At least be honest about it.  Besides, who doesn't like a parade?

[dbHunterNY]

"accept some limitations on buck hunting opportunity"
So that statement equals AR's? If you are hanging your hat on those statistics, couldn't there be other ideas in the hunters' heads that answered the question. The whole survey was statistically cute to justify the expense, rather than just coming out and canvasing the hunting population or a larger section. How about, "do you want AR's? "

They should've. Any survey I've seen that's asked the simple question is around 60+% in favor of them.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[dbHunterNY]

I'll give you a chance to provide a link to this NY Hunt Club,because the one I just looked up has a whopping 237 members and a whole lot of subjects in the general deer hunting forum posted in 2016 with no replies....

Off the top of my head I'm not sure how I copy a link because I use the Facebook app. It's "NY hunt club - a group for the NY hunter." It has over 18,400 members with a vast majority I'm sure are hunters who hunt or have hunted NY. its a Private page that Joe blow who hunts from Kansas can't chime in on.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[growalot]

Thank you dbh..... Phade explained that...This is why I asked for a link BEFORE searching further my self. I understand not all searches show true results all the time......his (Purdy's) reply "It's on FB " wasn't a link...I know several on here do not use FB as well as my self

Edited March 21, 2017 by growalot

[dbHunterNY]

If this was truly based on legit scientific data, the Swiss cheese listing of WMUs wouldn't have taken place. In or out - black and white.
This is political jockeying in an area a legislator is using for their own gain. Plain and simple. The biological basis for this is second to the retention of office.
Regardless of where anyone stands on this issue - it was half assed from the get go and is simply demonstrative of the problem NY has. People like you who want to rationalize any semblance of this process and being beneficial is exactly the problem.
I have a question for you - did you write your legislator and ask that they put forth proposal to remove legislators from the biological management of the resource beyond funding/budgetary allocations and czar/appointment?
I did.
Anything else you provided to your legislator only supports the legislators being involved in decisions they should not be involved in. Period.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No i didn't belittle them or use the term czar. Also they're not appointed their elected. I hope you asked for them to support the right to hunt and fish prior to basically trashing them.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Doewhacker]

24 minutes ago, dbHunterNY said:

Off the top of my head I'm not sure how I copy a link because I use the Facebook app. It's "NY hunt club - a group for the NY hunter." It has over 18,400 members with a vast majority I'm sure are hunters who hunt or have hunted NY. its a Private page that Joe blow who hunts from Kansas can't chime in on.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 

I'm sure a Facebook page vets all of its perspective members when they send in a request to join to make sure they are all from NY and are a real person.

[Doewhacker]

13 minutes ago, dbHunterNY said:

No i didn't belittle them or use the term czar. Also they're not appointed their elected. I hope you asked for them to support the right to hunt and fish prior to basically trashing them.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 

Its a privilege not a right.

[growalot]

I want to add this to those pictures note the 2014 date in that last picture and the 6 points....I have pics of him in 2015 and 2016 same 6 points just bigger mature body and bigger 6pts and width I showed them here on the forum......He would not be a shoot-able buck on my land with the 4pt rule...ever..for if he hasn't developed more than 6pts in, at the very least, 31/2 years he never will.

Edited March 21, 2017 by growalot

[Grizz1219]

To be honest.. should have just gone to a 1 buck per year rule... Like Ohio.... You shoot a spike, you are done shooting bucks.. Not sure I believe you should be told what to shoot but then again, they tell you how big a fish you can keep based on length... so we are already living that life... Either way, no one will stop hunting over this... no matter how loudly we whine.. 

[Raymond Purdy]

4 hours ago, phade said:

NYHC is valid and close to 20k members. Closed group - you can't see the page detail w/o joining I think.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So do you respect the survey results?

[growalot]

Doewhacker ...are you saying you do not support the right to hunt and fish legislation?

Quote

https://www.nssf.org/factsheets/PDF/StateRighttoHunFish.pdf

 

Edited March 21, 2017 by growalot

[Two Track]

Not sure why I keep hearing hearing take the guns out of rut.

According to article, for the Southern zone gun season starts at the end of the rut.

Bow hunters get the entire rut to hunt and yet complain that the problem is the gun hunters.  You don't hear me saying take the bow season out of the rut, nor are most other hunters.

I see nothing wrong with a 1 buck rule, even if it just short term to bring numbers up for the bucks.

I grew up with a 2 deer max for the year, one being a buck.  Archery and Muzzle-loader were included, not special tags for additional deer issued.  Gun season was split in three 1 week seasons - early Nov (all deer), mid-Dec (does only), mid-Jan (all deer).  For a few years there was an chance for a 2nd buck tag, but it had to be something like 10 points and a minimum spread of ___ for an additional fee.  Herds increased since then and the rules have changed even more since I moved to NY.  Like next year, my dad will be able hunt on Sundays for the first-time.

Antler points do not indicate the age of the buck, except the spikes & forked horns being yearlings. Body size & neck size are better indicators of a mature buck than the rack it is sporting (which may be smaller from broken tines, genetics, environmental factors). 

AR's do not make complete sense.  Reducing the number of bucks allowed to be shot does make better sense.  Shoot the small 2-3 pointer or wait to see if a bigger deer shows up, no second chance in another season if you take the small buck.  That leaves at least one of them to bred and grow instead of taking out two bucks.

DEC managing reg's makes more sense than the legislature - all know how everything the legislature passes make sense (thumbhole stocks, adjustable stocks, muzzlebreaks being illegal for semi-auto shotguns and rifles for instance, features that make it easier to handle and control a firearm).

Can't we all at least agree to keep the NY legislature out of this and keep it under the DEC?

 

[dbHunterNY]

On 3/16/2017 at 2:05 PM, Culvercreek hunt club said:

I don't get the exclusion of some units in this. Especially out by me. 8H and 8M, with 8 H being one of the units listed as having a huge population problem. It may be a simplistic view but I would think that having the mandatory AR's would put a bigger focus on the doe population. Not the half a$$ed way it was done last time. This go around you are almost asking hunters that don't want AR to go to the areas that do have it to take young bucks. To me if they are going to do it then do it and do it across the board. right or wrong I am fed up with NY's style of half A$$ed 

i really don't have direct answers for your question other than discussion, as i didn't write it.  If you poled ARs in all seriousness do you think they'd have significantly less support in these WMU?  Another point of discussion do antler restrictions really effect doe harvest there with such liberal distribution of tags compared to out this way?  For the WMU with pilot ARs, DEC has published "ARs did not noticeably impact harvest of antlerless deer. Hunters also indicated that ARs had little influence on their willingness to harvest antlerless deer."  I used to think antler restrictions did have an influence, but after managing the 2nd largest QDM co-op in NY for years now with voluntary antler restrictions, i've come to realize those that would take a doe do so and those that won't still won't.  even less effected are the educated QDM minded hunters that collectively determine doe harvest goals, set them, and fill the freezer accordingly. bucks are something that'd be an optional cherry on top for the freezer.  Another devil's advocate thought i had is i take doe at opportunistic times while scouting from observation stands and while buck hunting.  i don't usually travel to take doe.  if it encourages hunters that have the means to gain access on ground in these units to spend more time there due to less restrictions, they'll more than likely run into more opportunity to take doe there as well.  with the availability of flexible DMP tags in these units they likely be in possession of at least one.  why AR's won't function equally as well if crafted to match harvest data for these units doesn't make sense.  that said maybe yearling buck harvest rates are significantly lower in these areas?  i can't truely answer that aside from my hunting experience there, which is isolated and therefore hard to ignorantly assume the whole WMU's to be the same.  in those cases it'd fall under don't apply restrictions if you don't need to.  some of the comments on here that say to have the "restrictions" only during this or that portion of the season or for this or that implement don't understand how it'd effect results and basically just be stirring the pot.

[Buckmaster7600]

Why can't NY just have a pole. When you buy a license have a card with a few hot topic questions XBows,AR's etc everyone getting their license fills out the card and the retailer mails them all back in and the DEC uses those numbers for the next season.

This would basically eliminate the arguments for or against, let's let majority rule.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dbHunterNY]

3 hours ago, Doewhacker said:

Its a privilege not a right.

thanks for reiterating my point.

[dbHunterNY]

13 minutes ago, Buckmaster7600 said:

Why can't NY just have a pole. When you buy a license have a card with a few hot topic questions XBows,AR's etc everyone getting their license fills out the card and the retailer mails them all back in and the DEC uses those numbers for the next season.

This would basically eliminate the arguments for or against, let's let majority rule.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

this just did another one this past season.  they do them often.  why nothing much changes blows my mind and they wonder why certain individuals FOIL the crap out of information they receive.