SB 4739 - Establishes the yearling buck protection program

[Death From Above]

2 hours ago, growalot said:

2 hours ago, growalot said:

Here's the problem I have with that train of thought, Though you say you believe there are better ways.... you support a state wide LEGISLATION. The DEC was addressing this and JUST started the " let them walk" program. Now I'm sorry, some may think just one season..ONE season wasn't enough to make a difference for them. Do not expect others to think MANDATORY LEGISLATION is the answer either.

 Now I have to say to your train of thought. There comes a time when any people stating that for the HEALTH of any animal population, legislation is the answer to try to superseded Mother Natures, natural ebb and flow, are stating a fallacy.

Yes you can legislate human interactions with wild life...but never what Mother nature will do on her own.It is purely a flawed argument. Keeping humans from shooting specific deer in specific areas to "better" the herd has more than once been shown as a failure...Don't believe me, ask some of the other guys on this forum that have lived through the DEC doe management "issues" , when mother nature came in on their tails and took out what ever she wanted. There are still units trying to recover from that. I am not going to assume % or numbers in your unit nor any other units I'm not familiar with. I will though say guys in there little suits sitting behind their big desks in Albany have no business doing so either.

Here's the problem I have with that train of thought, Though you say you believe there are better ways.... you support a state wide LEGISLATION. The DEC was addressing this and JUST started the " let them walk" program. Now I'm sorry, some may think just one season..ONE season wasn't enough to make a difference for them. Do not expect others to think MANDATORY LEGISLATION is the answer either.

 Now I have to say to your train of thought. There comes a time when any people stating that for the HEALTH of any animal population, legislation is the answer to try to superseded Mother Natures, natural ebb and flow, are stating a fallacy.

Yes you can legislate human interactions with wild life...but never what Mother nature will do on her own.It is purely a flawed argument. Keeping humans from shooting specific deer in specific areas to "better" the herd has more than once been shown as a failure...Don't believe me, ask some of the other guys on this forum that have lived through the DEC doe management "issues" , when mother nature came in on their tails and took out what ever she wanted. There are still units trying to recover from that. I am not going to assume % or numbers in your unit nor any other units I'm not familiar with. I will though say guys in there little suits sitting behind their big desks in Albany have no business doing so either.

 

Some clarifications for you…if I could.

1.  I am not sure that I ever said that I fully support Mandatory Antler Restrictions.

 

2.  I did say that I see a potential benefit from them.

 

3.  I did admit that the selfish hunter in me would like them but I do not think I have advocated pushing them on you or anyone else.

 

4.  I did not say that that my ideals are more important than someone’s right taken away of choosing what they should shoot.

 

5.  I did say that I don’t think we look at this topic through the eyes of mother nature or the deer’s best needs.

 

I would disagree with your assumption that mother nature controls all of the subject matter we have been discussing.  If she did she’d just start dropping bucks from the sky to even out the buck to doe ratio a bit.  Would it be absolutely necessary?  No, but optimal, in her eyes likely.  Now the idea of bucks raining down on us is awesome, but a fallacy IMO.  To say that scientific evidence provided in this thread, or elsewhere, that affects that ratio and age structure is a fallacy, or nonsense as you suggested, is a bit shortsighted I think.

 

I’ll readily concede that your points are accurate if you direct them at deer numbers vs. habitat.  But we are talking about different things than that.  Mother nature cannot simply stop us from shooting the majority of younger bucks, but hunters and those that regulate them can.  If mother nature starts popping out 3 to 4 buck fawns for every doe fawn, then I will change my tune and agree with you.  Until then, we are having an effect through our harvest trends and mother nature is not going to address this unless we shoot way more than we already do.  If that happens we would be in potential trouble with reproduction rates, unless she starts allowing females to reproduce asexually.  

 

I am sorry, but like it or not we as hunters can effect things that mother nature might prefer that we don't.  Just how important those impacts are, and how detrimental they can be, is the question that the DEC needs to answer, and their opinion has been shown in their actions I would say.  Doesn't mean it is wrong for someone to wish it was more important to them, even if mother nature isn't acting aggressively to address it either.

 

[growalot]

On fair ground with deer...fawning 1:1...1:2 so for every 50 doe that give birth she is either increasing the herd by 50 or 100

 On good lands, ag lands, like here in western NYS you have a 1:2 ...1:3 and oh yes sometimes...not often but some times 1:4 So for every 50 doe she increases the heard by 100 or 150.

Killing button buck has 0 affect on wiping out a piece of lands deer population. For BUCKS disperse...and I won't even attempt to calculate the astronomical odds of every button buck being killed in a season...

[growalot]

hahahahaha

[NFA-ADK]

  Where is the popcorn?

Edited March 24, 2017 by NFA-ADK

[stubborn1VT]

2 hours ago, Raymond Purdy said:

Yeah Biologist don't know what they are talking about.

I probably don't give them enough credit.  You certainly give them too much credit.  

The term "animal husbandry" was misused.  I simply pointed that out.  

How often do you hear hunters rave about the great job their state does managing the whitetail deer herd.  Between the politicians and the biologists, they generally do a poor job.  Excuse my lack of faith.  You can savor their Kool-aide all you want.  Forgive me if I'd rather see the "parade" continue.  At least I'll know what to expect.  

[stubborn1VT]

Animal husbandry... geez.  I don't think the 1.5 year old bucks need any special management, and they certainly don't need husbands.  Nothing wrong with it I guess, but it wouldn't do much for overall deer numbers.

[growalot]

lol

[Death From Above]

1 hour ago, phade said:

When it comes to winterkill scenarios in under-capacity areas - when it does happen - you want the fawns to die rather than the middle class/breeders. You want the old/inactive in breeding to die. Seeing them dead is a sign for you to know that things are happening right. Seeing fawns dead and lots of middle class deer, that is when you have real winterkill problems.

That's why in certain scenarios, quality deer management actually can include fawn harvest during the hunting season as part of a sound management plan.

The other component is that many parts of the state do not need deer to survive better (if you take the DEC for word). They're trying to reduce populations. You think the DEC is interested in improving the ability for deer to survive winter when they have been trying to drive increased harvest numbers - to the point of ramming down a forced season?

 

No, I won’t ever accuse the DEC of providing measures necessary to either limit the number of winter kill or in an attempt optimize the deer herd.  Not in NY anyways.  I certainly see that they likely feel they need a solid winterkill to aid their attempt to lower herd numbers.  Will not disagree with your thoughts on that one bit.  I also remember reading articles in the 90's encouraging hunters to shoot the fawns, as they were less likely to make it through the winter ahead.  I remember one season, fresh off reading that article, shooting the smallest doe I have ever taken.  Easiest drag I will likely ever have, but I had the toughest time reconciling it as I kept looking at her on my way out.  Nothing wrong with it I realize, but I will personally never do that again.  Just didn't feel right to me.

I also agree that if winterkill is necessary, the deer that should be driving that number up should be made up of fawns, older deer, unhealthy deer for whatever reason, and the bucks that have worn themselves down the most during the preceding rut.  I would hope that young, up and coming, in the prime of their youth bucks would not be the majority in the winterkill numbers, but in my area they seem to be.  Of course I can’t tell you how many of their deaths originated from hunting wounds, but I am sure that may take a lot of them.

Even so, winterkill will happen, but IF it can be limited in fawns to an extent by providing them with an early start that better prepares them for winter then I like that scenario.  Same thing with higher buck numbers in general, which reduces stress of the longer rut on lessens the work load on the bucks present.  In many cases this stress is heavily on the younger bucks because that is the majority of what we have.  I'd like to see method used to limit winterkill in these categories, for sure.  But I realize that it is very unlikely NY will implement AR to help this cause.

Land carrying capacity is another issue.  One also dealt with by better measures than AR.

[stubby68]

                 Maybe just maybe we need to let mother nature control the heard and the Dec should control the hunters. Someone stated that if mother nature controlled things she would drop bucks out of the sky to even out the buck to doe ratio. Everyone says there are too many doe and not enough bucks. More doe are found dead from winter kill and other natural things then bucks. Maybe there are enough bucks and too many doe. Maybe that is mother nature's way of trying to bring the doe numbers down. Maybe the fact that so many does are passed in hopes of a big buck is the problem. Humans have a big impact in what nature can and can't do. It might not be that too many young bucks are being killed it could be not enough does are. Anyone with a trail cam knows there are bucks that never get seen by b the human eye because they are out only at night. How many times have people seen big old buck out in a field after dark but those same bucks never get seen during day time. Could be that the old big bucks are more in number then anyone knows. How can an accurate herd number be given when we all know there deer out there that only get seen once or twice a year. Could be there are more then a few out there that will never be seen.

             So much thought and argument put into saying we need more bucks to make the ratio better and never a thought that maybe we just need less doe. Fewer doe might bring out those older bucks that everyone wants because they just might have to go searching for does. Everyone things the buck numbers are low and maybe that is because they want to see more bucks. Could be mother nature is good with buck numbers and needs to get doe numbers down. But no one wants to hang a doe on there wall now do they. As for bigger deer producing more meat. Whe do you think beef cattle are sent to slater at a young age? Because the meat is better tasting and not tuff.

            A lot of maybes I know but think about it people think the ratio is off because they want to see more bucks. Mother nature just might think she has enough bucks and need fewer doe and she doesn't care about your wall. In some areas maybe we need to lower doe numbers and in other lower buck numbers. Just a thought. Because in the end who really knows what needs to be done other then mother nature. As humans we refuse to let her take care of things because she does not have our wants in her best nature. Only our needs. She placed deer here for humans need for food nor our want of wall decorations. Wee humans started using them for things other then they were intended.

[G-Man]

9 hours ago, grampy said:

I don't see the connection between a spike horn and a stick of firewood. ..........sigh.............

Apparently he doesn't eat anything but hard logs and horns..

[G-Man]

As for older bucks having more meat.. Farm raised cattle are young They still have a lot of growing to do.. Why don't we let them get old and mature before slaughter? Because the weight they add is disproportionat to food to needed to add weight at year 2 or 3.. Deer are the same most yearlings will top 100 to 115lbs but as a 2.4 will only weigh 125 to 135.. They eat and eat for another whole year but do not double in weight.. So from a perspective of leaving more deer to age (and eat another years worth of good and browse) mother nature responds with decreasing birth rates as food isn't available for young new recruits.. While in populations where females are dominate more males are born..and in. Male dominated populations more females are produced.. So Yes biologically there is a reason to let more bucks live.. To in fact decrease the population in the end.. Of left to natural means.. Fortunately we create an environment where more bucks are born so more hunters have a chance to harvest them.. As 1.5 year olds are booted by the females and tend to wander onto properties and in front of guns of thankful hunters who only have a buck tag..

[ManicOutdoorsman92]

On fair ground with deer...fawning 1:1...1:2 so for every 50 doe that give birth she is either increasing the herd by 50 or 100
 On good lands, ag lands, like here in western NYS you have a 1:2 ...1:3 and oh yes sometimes...not often but some times 1:4 So for every 50 doe she increases the heard by 100 or 150.
Killing button buck has 0 affect on wiping out a piece of lands deer population. For BUCKS disperse...and I won't even attempt to calculate the astronomical odds of every button buck being killed in a season...

The buck to doe ratio is a concept that man developed to suit his liking, how does that apply to a nature managed free range wild herd. Not that they have any real idea of the numbers and age class in a wild herd, how many deer are hit by cars, shot and never recovered not reported or poached, and then aside from that, they take in the tag data, whether it was a hard winter. Tell me how in the hell do you evaluate what the buck to doe ratio is in a free range wild deer herd

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[growalot]

Seriously you people need to read posts better...other people understood what I wrote so it wasn't me..manic please go back and read that again.

[Larry]

As of right now there is no Assembly co-bill. So this attempt to circumvent the DEC will have no chance to become law and will likely die in committee without a co-bill. This was not about whether you’re in favor of AR’s or not it was about the back handed way it was being done.

[Four Season Whitetail's]

8 hours ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

Let me clear this up for you. The individual branch may choose to back this but national is not.

No cause National only cares about the Southern States!

[Four Season Whitetail's]

36 minutes ago, Larry said:

As of right now there is no Assembly co-bill. So this attempt to circumvent the DEC will have no chance to become law and will likely die in committee without a co-bill. This was not about whether you’re in favor of AR’s or not it was about the back handed way it was being done.

The way it's being talked about in many circles it very well may get all the support needed?

[Rebel Darling]

As of right now there is no Assembly co-bill. So this attempt to circumvent the DEC will have no chance to become law and will likely die in committee without a co-bill. This was not about whether you’re in favor of AR’s or not it was about the back handed way it was being done.

Assemblywoman Woerner introduced the same as on March 17.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ManicOutdoorsman92]

Seriously you people need to read posts better...other people understood what I wrote so it wasn't me..manic please go back and read that again.

I think i replied to the wrong post..


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[ManicOutdoorsman92]

 

Some clarifications for you…if I could.

1.  I am not sure that I ever said that I fully support Mandatory Antler Restrictions.

 

2.  I did say that I see a potential benefit from them.

 

3.  I did admit that the selfish hunter in me would like them but I do not think I have advocated pushing them on you or anyone else.

 

4.  I did not say that that my ideals are more important than someone’s right taken away of choosing what they should shoot.

 

5.  I did say that I don’t think we look at this topic through the eyes of mother nature or the deer’s best needs.

 

I would disagree with your assumption that mother nature controls all of the subject matter we have been discussing.  If she did she’d just start dropping bucks from the sky to even out the buck to doe ratio a bit.  Would it be absolutely necessary?  No, but optimal, in her eyes likely.  Now the idea of bucks raining down on us is awesome, but a fallacy IMO.  To say that scientific evidence provided in this thread, or elsewhere, that affects that ratio and age structure is a fallacy, or nonsense as you suggested, is a bit shortsighted I think.

 

I’ll readily concede that your points are accurate if you direct them at deer numbers vs. habitat.  But we are talking about different things than that.  Mother nature cannot simply stop us from shooting the majority of younger bucks, but hunters and those that regulate them can.  If mother nature starts popping out 3 to 4 buck fawns for every doe fawn, then I will change my tune and agree with you.  Until then, we are having an effect through our harvest trends and mother nature is not going to address this unless we shoot way more than we already do.  If that happens we would be in potential trouble with reproduction rates, unless she starts allowing females to reproduce asexually.  

 

I am sorry, but like it or not we as hunters can effect things that mother nature might prefer that we don't.  Just how important those impacts are, and how detrimental they can be, is the question that the DEC needs to answer, and their opinion has been shown in their actions I would say.  Doesn't mean it is wrong for someone to wish it was more important to them, even if mother nature isn't acting aggressively to address it either.

 

This one, sorry grow

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[Culvercreek hunt club]

No cause National only cares about the Southern States!

I see it differently. They are more dense with memberships down there by NY is one of the fastest growing member lists.

[Death From Above]

2 hours ago, ManicOutdoorsman92 said:

The buck to doe ratio is a concept that man developed to suit his liking, how does that apply to a nature managed free range wild herd. Not that they have any real idea of the numbers and age class in a wild herd, how many deer are hit by cars, shot and never recovered not reported or poached, and then aside from that, they take in the tag data, whether it was a hard winter. Tell me how in the hell do you evaluate what the buck to doe ratio is in a free range wild deer herd

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk
 

 

Manic, are you serious when you say that the ideal buck to doe ratio is a man-made concept?  I may not be able to tell you how to correctly determine the accurate buck to doe ratio to a deer, but there are several ways that both biologists and land owners can get a fairly good idea by using trail camera surveys.  But your suggestion that it is a man-made concept has me confused.  If you are suggesting that mother nature didn’t invent the idea first?  If so, then I’d say that is a pretty easy idea to refute.

Nature’s desired buck to doe ration is 1:1.   If it wasn’t 1 to 1 then they would be born at that ratio.  If you had to give a slight edge to either the buck or doe birth rates, it might be ever so slightly higher for bucks.  Maybe that is because they lead a little more dangerous life.  Or maybe she likes it that way to stave off over-population by a supplying a few less does to repopulate.  If you think I am altering this stat by picking a study that might fit my liking, go to the QDM site.  If ever a place you might think would suggest that doe fawns are born at a higher rate than bucks (to advocate protecting young bucks), then that would be the site.

I think that most studies would say that mother nature changing this ratio on a need basis (as suggested in another post above) is a myth.  How would she know this?  She births them 50/50 for the most part, and the rest is handled by other factors.

Buck to doe ratios isn’t a man-made concept, its nature itself.  1 to 1 is natural, not 1:2, 1:3, 1:4 or 1:5.  Not 2:1, 3:1, 4:1 or 5:1.  The 1:1 ratio is how she makes it happen, so it is obviously her desire.   As I mentioned, and many a biologist will claim, the slight and hardly detectable skew towards buck fawns might be due to their more dangerous lifestyle, but it is so miniscule that we might be reading into that too much.

We, the hunters, are the ones that have a large effect on buck to doe ratios.  For instance, over a (5) year period from 2010-2014, hunters in NY averaged 132,709 male deer harvested vs. 104,021 females each year.  Add the higher natural mortality rate of bucks to that and you can see why our numbers grow a lower buck to doe ratio than mother nature’s 1:1 game plan.  Following this patter for 100 years and it is no wonder why much of our state is much closer to 1 buck for every 4 does than the 1:1 ratio that the deer are born at.  If you stopped hunting in our state altogether, and as our herd got older and our current deer died of old age, mother nature’s natural ratio of 1:1 would take over and we’d be back closer to that figure than where we stand right now.  I’d say that would answer whether buck to doe ratios are a man-made concept or not.

[tuckersdaddy]

Let me clear this up for you. The individual branch may choose to back this but national is not.

The individual branches in say NY?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[Culvercreek hunt club]

The individual branches in say NY?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Yes. Majority seem to support it. Some don't and some haven't voiced and opinion. It doesn't seem to be that far out of whack to some of the surveys that are published. Given the fact that people in these groups, on these websites and those vocal in public about it are probably the more die hard of the deer hunters, the survey results don't surprise me. I believe in reality it is more of a split right down the middle in support and opposition.

[stubborn1VT]

Changes in the ratio of doe vs buck fawns is not a myth.  It varies for all kinds of reasons.  In all my years of watching deer, I have never seen anything close to a 1:1 ratio of doe to buck fawns in the hills of Vermont.  I spent a summer on Martha's Vineyard, where they deer density is extremely high, and saw all kinds of young bucks.  I'm all for science, but not when it goes directly opposite of first hand observation.

[tuckersdaddy]

Im not saying that at all. They probably have more of a voice in their political dealings than any other whitetailed deer organization. That doesnt mean that they have a vested interest in AR legislation, as they have made it perfectly clear that they will not get involved in such an effort unless it meets certain criteria. You havent hit any nerves with me, Im just pointing out that you are incorrect in what you are saying.

Antler and antler production has become a money maker, weather its from sales of the latest mineral block or the increase in memberships... Its money. So if the qdma has no political push un this then what group is? Why would the legislature attempt to push a bill overriding whats been left to the DEC regulate? Nothing gets done in Albany that doesnt involve payouts in cash or political capitol and there arent many groups or people that have any interest in how big the rack is on the deer they just hit with thier car... So whos doing the pushing?
On a side note WNY I recall someone being very vigulent about thier protests about doe only the first 2 weeks of bow in some areas... You should understand then as to why there is a large group of hunters thats not to keen on having what has been thier hunting experience forever changed by dislocated legislators....

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk