SB 4739 - Establishes the yearling buck protection program

[Death From Above]

46 minutes ago, ManicOutdoorsman92 said:

Curious how does an irrelavant example provide any evidence of whats really going on with the deer, afterall you stated yourself its irellavant. So how does a theoretic example, apply to actual numbers, and hows that any indication of whats happening and whats going to happen.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk
 

As I stated.  Follow the simple math.  Do the math yourself if you'd like.  It simply shows that it is possible for the ratio of bucks per doe to change simply through harvest rates EVEN IF fawns are born naturally 1:1.  Some people wonder how it can get to a low ratio if the fawns are truly born 1:1.  I supplied mathematic example of how it is possible based on two assumptions and estimates.  Exact numbers were never provided or suggested.  Assumptions were made ONLY to explain the POSSIBILITY.

It was never my intent to say that this is specifically true to your area, and that by using the formula you can arrive at the exact number of bucks versus does in your area.  It was provided to show how we can increase our number of does over bucks by using the average harvest numbers provided by the DEC if you use the 1:1 birthing ratio.  That was it.

I have no idea what the buck to doe ratio is in your area, or in the entire state for sure.  I can point to several opinions that NY has arguably the WORST buck to doe ratio in the country.  Dead last.  If your area doesn't reflect that then I say great for you!  But the areas that I hunt seem to be right on tack with the assumption that our ratio is in fact way out of wack.

 

[Death From Above]

23 minutes ago, growalot said:

 

So I have to assume many on here must have a link phobia because a few have posted links that are totally ignored...Now when I see someone else's link that should be considered...I need to say ...open and READ here is ncountry's link again: Thanks for posting that.

https://www.qdma.com/reality-doebuck-ratios/

Agreed, that is the link that I pointed to in a post yesterday regarding the 50/50 birth ratio, as well as how we observe different ratios that are actually accurate.   

Edited March 25, 2017 by Death From Above
forgot an "I"

[growalot]

Man,  DFA people talk about how rough my posts are to read,but I feel like someone has shoved me into small locked room with a ricocheting bullet after reading yours...back and forth and all over...

Did you actually read the entire piece and look at the chart?

[Four Season Whitetail's]

7 hours ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

I can't think of a season that I haven't enjoyed and aside from the taxes and the crap government I consider myself lucky to have grown up here and raised my family here. I guess we all measure life using different rulers.

You have never seen the..Top 10?    We are 10 in both the worst place to ever go deer hunt because of the high yearling kills and the worst state to live because  ..............................  well one can pick off of that list.

[Four Season Whitetail's]

6 hours ago, wolc123 said:

Those I see are usually still with their mothers, until their 2nd hunting season.  They are only alone, during the first one, if their mother gets shot.    

 

Incorrect!

[ManicOutdoorsman92]

Doe to buck ratio....
https://www.qdma.com/reality-doebuck-ratios/
Qdma article , but there are quite a few others out there that show the same math..

Deer management, is just that managing DEER, theres all other critters out there and envirmental influences at play. Imo the proclaimed "high quality" deer hunting states are nothing more than free range deer farms, no wonder all the disease issues out there. All the management, feeders mineral blocks whatever, creates only a deer friendly enviroment that I'm sure would create an exiting deer hunting experience, but disrupts the natural balance of an ecosystem as a whole. Like it or not the forces that in effect balance an ecosystem, are ongoing and always at play and whatever manipulation you may try to produce the results you prefer, those natural forces will always be attempting to restore balance

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[growalot]

Yet guys that move south come back for our deer hunting. I know for a fact ,because I'm on some sites that are mainly southern and Midwestern that have guys come to NY to hunt our deer....Is it like Illinois, Ohio ect...? No, but It's time some of you start taking off the blinders and saying THANK THE DEAR LORD or whom ever you pray to,that it's not. Oh it's coming,  no doubt. but the old saying " Watch what you wish for " applies here...Yes probably not to you four season ...after all your still raising deer aren't you? Though for the non industry regular hunters out there, they need to watch what they are wishing for...IMO

[Death From Above]

40 minutes ago, growalot said:

Man,  DFA people talk about how rough my posts are to read,but I feel like someone has shoved me into small locked room with a ricocheting bullet after reading yours...back and forth and all over...

Did you actually read the entire piece and look at the chart?

 

Yeah, I think you might be dodging your own bullets in that room.  Not mine.

I sourced the article for two facts:

1.  50/50 birth ratio.

2.  Our observations are often different then what the ratio truly is.

Please read this part at the top of that chart you referenced in your post above.  It says:

This example shows how even a poorly managed deer population can come close to correcting its own buck:doe ratio each year through fawn recruitment.

Some key words are CLOSE TO CORRECTING.  Didn’t say corrects it completely.  In addition that doesn’t talk about how poorly managed a deer herd is.  The poorer managed, the less it can “self-correct”.   That should be pretty easy to understand I would think.  Doubt they would have suggested that NY’s herd is doing an adequate job in this self-correcting process, as their organization would likely point to our state as one of – if not the worst – managed deer herd in the county.  Growalot - you can't always read an article for what you want it to mean.  Sometimes you have to realize that there are both generalizations and exceptions.  In fact, if all deer herds self managed as you would like that statement to read, then WHY would QDM exist as an organization???

So, please point to statements in that article that do not agree with what I am suggesting in my posts in this thread.  Not sure that I see much in that article, if anything that goes against my assumptions.  You can change your mind all you’d like, but I am still supporting the same theories.

[ManicOutdoorsman92]

Look at the most basic food web illustrations, you'll see each thing effects the other, and sometimes multiple things effected by one, the basics dont include the large picture, but its apparent the DEER management crowd cant grasp a larger concept, so start with that.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[growalot]

Quote

Growalot - you can't always read an article for what you want it to mean.  Sometimes you have to realize that there are both generalizations and exceptions.  In fact, if all deer herds self managed as you would like that statement to read, then WHY would QDM exist as an organization???

Are you kidding me? That to the  person of multiple link post so people have more than one thing to read and consider...LOL ...You are a trip!  the above when you wrote this:

Quote

Some key words are CLOSE TO CORRECTING.  Didn’t say corrects it completely.  In addition that doesn’t talk about how poorly managed a deer herd is.  The poorer managed, the less it can “self-correct”.   That should be pretty easy to understand I would think.  Doubt they would have suggested that NY’s herd is doing an adequate job in this self-correcting process

no pretty sure it's your bullet bouncing all around....

[stubborn1VT]

I don't find DFA hard to follow at all.  He's using complete sentences.  I still have questions, but he's doing a fair job of illustrating some theories on the buck/doe ratio.  

[Death From Above]

30 minutes ago, ManicOutdoorsman92 said:

Deer management, is just that managing DEER, theres all other critters out there and envirmental influences at play. Imo the proclaimed "high quality" deer hunting states are nothing more than free range deer farms, no wonder all the disease issues out there. All the management, feeders mineral blocks whatever, creates only a deer friendly enviroment that I'm sure would create an exiting deer hunting experience, but disrupts the natural balance of an ecosystem as a whole. Like it or not the forces that in effect balance an ecosystem, are ongoing and always at play and whatever manipulation you may try to produce the results you prefer, those natural forces will always be attempting to restore balance

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk
 

 

Manic, so if you are fairly certain that nothing we as hunters do affects all of this, do you advocate just getting rid of all our bag limits and season dates and let everyone do whatever they want.  After all, it will just all take care of itself any ways.  If you’d like to keep some regulations, then why do you assume that it is important to regulate just so far to protect our deer herd, but it only matters to a point that you decide on?

BTW, I’m going to go elk hunting in NY this fall, cause they are still there right?  We didn’t effect that population, did we?  After that I will make sure that I get that bison tag for western PA again, one of these years I will get one I’m sure.  I know my great, great, great, great, great uncle did back in the day.

See Growalot, I can be sarcastic as well!

[ManicOutdoorsman92]

 

Manic, so if you are fairly certain that nothing we as hunters do affects all of this, do you advocate just getting rid of all our bag limits and season dates and let everyone do whatever they want.  After all, it will just all take care of itself any ways.  If you’d like to keep some regulations, then why do you assume that it is important to regulate just so far to protect our deer herd, but it only matters to a point that you decide on?

BTW, I’m going to go elk hunting in NY this fall, cause they are still there right?  We didn’t effect that population, did we?  After that I will make sure that I get that bison tag for western PA again, one of these years I will get one I’m sure.  I know my great, great, great, great, great uncle did back in the day.

See Growalot, I can be sarcastic as well!

Did I say we aren't included in the web? Let me put it simple..
Through natural selection, a balanced ecosystem is created in an environment friendly for all critters, including us (OMG did he just call us critters!)
Through qdm an unbalanced ecosystem is created in an environment friendly for deer, and deer hunters, thats it. I understand your reasoning, but its selfish in nature. The problem is so many are caught up in our manipulated, manufactured life, we've become detatched. While we understand how our actions can affect an ecosystem, we always fail to understand how the natural forces in the ecosystem effect us. That'll catch up to us, imo we're cresting over the falls as far as an ecosystem as a whole and we'll pay the price eventually. So honestly enjoy the gravy train while it lasts, sure employ AR get a big buck state here in new york, feeders mineral blocks, legalize them too, afterall its for the herd health right, but until you can get out of your selfish, shallow mindset, you will fail to see the big pictute

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[ManicOutdoorsman92]

In a natural world, with no regs, and we were indeed killing to feed ourselves we'd ultimately starve ourselves due to overharvesting, and hopefully the remaining would learn there lesson. Which brings up another point, how many of you have meat left at the end of the year, and how many are just scumbags who kill for a rack and donate excess meat, oh sure its for a good cause. If this is the case maybe your overharvesting, and thus not allowing more bucks, whether year old or button, too grow,

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[Death From Above]

46 minutes ago, ManicOutdoorsman92 said:

Did I say we aren't included in the web? Let me put it simple..
Through natural selection, a balanced ecosystem is created in an environment friendly for all critters, including us (OMG did he just call us critters!)
Through qdm an unbalanced ecosystem is created in an environment friendly for deer, and deer hunters, thats it. I understand your reasoning, but its selfish in nature. The problem is so many are caught up in our manipulated, manufactured life, we've become detatched. While we understand how our actions can affect an ecosystem, we always fail to understand how the natural forces in the ecosystem effect us. That'll catch up to us, imo we're cresting over the falls as far as an ecosystem as a whole and we'll pay the price eventually. So honestly enjoy the gravy train while it lasts, sure employ AR get a big buck state here in new york, feeders mineral blocks, legalize them too, afterall its for the herd health right, but until you can get out of your selfish, shallow mindset, you will fail to see the big pictute

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk
 

 

So here is the difference between your opinion and mine.

I am advocating that “natural” herd numbers, and the way that nature is designed, was done so WITHOUT man’s advances that affect the whole “ecosystem” you are describing.  I am saying that our expansion into their ecosystem and the change to the amount of habitat they now have is not natural in many ways.  We have taken a lot of their habitat, and changed much of it as well.  Some for the good (agriculture) and some for the bad (housing and urban development).  As hunters, we have expanded both our numbers (more people then were here when the native Americans were here alone) and in weapon range (guns are more efficient than bows and spears).

You are including hunters (remember you called us "critters", right???), in our current state and proficiency as described above, as a natural predator that somehow mother nature prepared for by evaluating our future potential as predators instead of what we were.  You are diminishing the effect that our advances have made on both harvest numbers, harvest patterns (hunting for horns instead of just meat in some cases), and the impact on their environment.  To suggest that we do not have the potential to impact the deer in their natural state (as initiated by nature), is what you seem to imply by including our current predator status as some sort of natural occurrence.

You are missing the entire point of QDM.  Look at their mission – apart from what you think is all related to antler size and trophy hunters.  Just take a minute and pretend that they really meant what they state in their mission statement.  They are advocating a return to what NATURE saw fit to design for our deer herd.  They imply that we as hunters, and by human influence other than hunting (expansion and other deer related influences) have had an effect on mother nature’s design for the deer herd.  They are trying to return it to what it was before man played a big part in altering her design.  They in no way are advocating some non-natural design to increase bucks and antler size above and beyond what the deer herd would be like without human interference. 

For this reason, I think you are not interpreting what QDM is trying to accomplish.  They don’t see nature as you do.  You somehow see nature as something that stays natural after man influences it.  I am not sure how you come to that conclusion.  We have already reached some “crests” as you put it and we in some people’s opinion are having negative effects on mother nature’s herd design.  QDM is advocating a return to her design, not move away from it as you suggest.

So to your point, how am I, or the QDMA “selfish” in their goals of returning nature to what she designed it to be?  I can certainly argue that your desire to just let humans do what they want and let nature fend for itself is a lot more “selfish” point of view. 

[growalot]

Try relevant sarcasm ...Your last paragraph happened across the nation AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME IN HISTORY. It had nothing to do with management in NY nor PA...There was no management anywhere  at the time...people coming to this country had never seen wild life in such abundance...why ? because they were too busy doing the same thing in their home lands until the royals of Europe deemed the wild life on l their lands off limits to the commoners. In fact some waged war on poachers. There wasn't a save bucks only non sense going on in Europe. When  people woke up here,species were extinct Which brought about the protection of the female breeding populations across the board.BTW..do you read a lot about blk tail buck,male bison,male elk,rams,moose?...Is male to female and herd health discussed, analyzed, protection of just the young put into play. Remember I know of lotteries and tag limits,limited seasons and high expenses...which is how they regulate and have for years...That said are they also discussing these animals as they do white tail and are they LEGISLATING, young male protection. I also realize there are millions more wht. tail than these others..but this alone would go to a total herd reduction not just doe for herd and environmental health. Doe and fawn are not the only ones effecting the woodlands...Now let's put food aside..buck do double the damage in yearly rubbing, The more buck especially young sexually aggressive buck ,yes just like in any species "teen" population,they do the most random rubbing. Doubling their ability to effect  regrowth. 

This back and forth and the bringing up of Satellite discussions,such as your last paragraph, could go on another 40 pages..it will never change one fact.it will remain a dog chasing tail thread.

BTW ..I have to ask..Before we Europeans came here and nearly wiped out the wht tail deer as we did other species. Can ANYONE show me studies of what the herd dynamics ,in a true natural state,were? Did the native Americans give us a study they did before we stepped foot on this ground? 

Edited March 25, 2017 by growalot

[Death From Above]

21 minutes ago, ManicOutdoorsman92 said:

In a natural world, with no regs, and we were indeed killing to feed ourselves we'd ultimately starve ourselves due to overharvesting, and hopefully the remaining would learn there lesson. Which brings up another point, how many of you have meat left at the end of the year, and how many are just scumbags who kill for a rack and donate excess meat, oh sure its for a good cause. If this is the case maybe your overharvesting, and thus not allowing more bucks, whether year old or button, too grow,

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk
 

 

Wow.  So someone doesn’t particularly care for venison, or maybe they choose to be a vegetarian (hard to imagine I know), but they LOVE to hunt, and they give the deer to a friend or relative, and you call them a “scumbag”.  Wow.  Do they have to hunt only for meat to be a legitimate hunter?  You certainly seem to have an opinion on exactly how everyone should think don’t you.  No acceptance for other opinions it seems.

It appears that you judge QDMA without knowing what they really stand for, and now you have decided that there is absolutely no way a hunter cannot be a scumbag unless he fits into your mindset on what his intention for the meat is.  

[Buckmaster7600]

In a natural world, with no regs, and we were indeed killing to feed ourselves we'd ultimately starve ourselves due to overharvesting, and hopefully the remaining would learn there lesson. Which brings up another point, how many of you have meat left at the end of the year, and how many are just scumbags who kill for a rack and donate excess meat, oh sure its for a good cause. If this is the case maybe your overharvesting, and thus not allowing more bucks, whether year old or button, too grow,

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

Eh, I'll take scumbag I have been called way worse. I only want a couple deer a year and everything else I give to elderly family, if that makes me a scumbag oh well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Death From Above]

34 minutes ago, growalot said:

Try relevant sarcasm ...Your last paragraph happened across the nation AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME IN HISTORY. It had nothing to do with management in NY nor PA...There was no management anywhere  at the time...people coming to this country had never seen wild life in such abundance...why ? because they were too busy doing the same thing in their home lands until the royals of Europe deemed the wild life on l their lands off limits to the commoners. In fact some waged war on poachers. There wasn't a save bucks only non sense going on in Europe. When  people woke up here,species were extinct Which brought about the protection of the female breeding populations across the board.BTW..do you read a lot about blk tail buck,male bison,male elk,rams,moose?...Is male to female and herd health discussed, analyzed, protection of just the young put into play. Remember I know of lotteries and tag limits,limited seasons and high expenses...which is how they regulate and have for years...That said are they also discussing these animals as they do white tail and are they LEGISLATING, young male protection. I also realize there are millions more wht. tail than these others..but this alone would go to a total herd reduction not just doe for herd and environmental health. Doe and fawn are not the only ones effecting the woodlands...Now let's put food aside..buck do double the damage in yearly rubbing, The more buck especially young sexually aggressive buck ,yes just like in any species "teen" population,they do the most random rubbing. Doubling their ability to effect  regrowth. 

This back and forth and the bringing up of Satellite discussions,such as your last paragraph, could go on another 40 pages..it will never change one fact.it will remain a dog chasing tail thread.

BTW ..I have to ask..Before we Europeans came here and nearly wiped out the wht tail deer as we did other species. Can ANYONE show me studies of what the herd dynamics ,in a true natural state,were? Did the native Americans give us a study they did before we stepped foot on this ground? 

 

Wow, I cannot believe that you typed all that in an attempt to insinuate that I used that example for anything other than to provide an example of a situation when man effected mother nature and her wildlife. 

[growalot]

So what was I insinuating you meant other than that?...enlighten me  apparently you have better in sight to my thought processes then I. Though your best response being what it was ,can be stated as interesting.

[ManicOutdoorsman92]

 

So here is the difference between your opinion and mine.

I am advocating that “natural” herd numbers, and the way that nature is designed, was done so WITHOUT man’s advances that affect the whole “ecosystem” you are describing.  I am saying that our expansion into their ecosystem and the change to the amount of habitat they now have is not natural in many ways.  We have taken a lot of their habitat, and changed much of it as well.  Some for the good (agriculture) and some for the bad (housing and urban development).  As hunters, we have expanded both our numbers (more people then were here when the native Americans were here alone) and in weapon range (guns are more efficient than bows and spears).

You are including hunters (remember you called us "critters", right???), in our current state and proficiency as described above, as a natural predator that somehow mother nature prepared for by evaluating our future potential as predators instead of what we were.  You are diminishing the effect that our advances have made on both harvest numbers, harvest patterns (hunting for horns instead of just meat in some cases), and the impact on their environment.  To suggest that we do not have the potential to impact the deer in their natural state (as initiated by nature), is what you seem to imply by including our current predator status as some sort of natural occurrence.

You are missing the entire point of QDM.  Look at their mission – apart from what you think is all related to antler size and trophy hunters.  Just take a minute and pretend that they really meant what they state in their mission statement.  They are advocating a return to what NATURE saw fit to design for our deer herd.  They imply that we as hunters, and by human influence other than hunting (expansion and other deer related influences) have had an effect on mother nature’s design for the deer herd.  They are trying to return it to what it was before man played a big part in altering her design.  They in no way are advocating some non-natural design to increase bucks and antler size above and beyond what the deer herd would be like without human interference. 

For this reason, I think you are not interpreting what QDM is trying to accomplish.  They don’t see nature as you do.  You somehow see nature as something that stays natural after man influences it.  I am not sure how you come to that conclusion.  We have already reached some “crests” as you put it and we in some people’s opinion are having negative effects on mother nature’s herd design.  QDM is advocating a return to her design, not move away from it as you suggest.

So to your point, how am I, or the QDMA “selfish” in their goals of returning nature to what she designed it to be?  I can certainly argue that your desire to just let humans do what they want and let nature fend for itself is a lot more “selfish” point of view. 

No I'm implying the natural forces at play are always attempting to regain balance, keyword attempting. And those forces are uncontrollable. Curious how does the qdma know what nature intended. Its not the quality ecosystem management association, its about keeping deer around for deer hunters however many that may be. This pretty much summed it up for me. from their homepage..
" we are hunters from all walks of life who share a passion for white-tailed deer. We believe it is our responsibility to ensure the future of white - tail deer, wildlife habitat and our heritage of hunting, as the authority on all things white-tail (oh jeez), we blend the art of hunting with the science science of management to create better deer and better deer hunting."
Notice there isnt a "as well as preserving a natural healthy ecosystem" preceding that sentence.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[Death From Above]

24 minutes ago, growalot said:

So what was I insinuating you meant other than that?...enlighten me  apparently you have better in sight to my thought processes then I. Though your best response being what it was ,can be stated as interesting.

 

Spin, twist, turn.  Waste of time me thinks.  I’ll take your advice and not chase that tail.

 

Why didn’t I take my own advice?  Thought I gave up trying to reason with you several pages ago.

[ManicOutdoorsman92]

Eh, I'll take scumbag I have been called way worse. I only want a couple deer a year and everything else I give to elderly family, if that makes me a scumbag oh well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No problem with giving away excess as numbers arent a problem, antlers is the issue ( with some atleast)Im saying those who want more bucks should maybe think about only killing what they need, iv you got excess to give to family thats great, thats the real purpose of hunting, providing for your family in the most direct way possible, but dont be upset with less large antlered deer. The scumbag comment is more for the guys that filled buck tags here then gotta go to pa or nh to get the chance at another antlered deer even though they have all ready got the required meat for the year, and donate excess to charities. again no problem taking extras to feed your family, but if u want more antlered deer that certainly plays a role

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[Buckmaster7600]

No problem with giving away excess as numbers arent a problem, antlers is the issue ( with some atleast)Im saying those who want more bucks should maybe think about only killing what they need, iv you got excess to give to family thats great, thats the real purpose of hunting, providing for your family in the most direct way possible, but dont be upset with less large antlered deer. The scumbag comment is more for the guys that filled buck tags here then gotta go to pa or nh to get the chance at another antlered deer even though they have all ready got the required meat for the year, and donate excess to charities. again no problem taking extras to feed your family, but if u want more antlered deer that certainly plays a role

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

Well, still a scumbag I hunt NC and Ohio and I'm not driving 12hrs to shoot a doe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[growalot]

Reasoning aye? So that's what you call it.  Certainly looked like you were trying to stay on top of the fence...dipping your foot down one side or the other as the wind blew,without losing a toe ,as it were.

Edited March 25, 2017 by growalot