SB 4739 - Establishes the yearling buck protection program

[stubby68]

18 minutes ago, Buckmaster7600 said:

 

Grow type that first part for you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I know you are but what am i

[dbHunterNY]

56 minutes ago, stubby68 said:

There it is best satisfy hunters values and intrests. Does not say it helps the herd in anyway or tha t it is need for anything other then the hunter. Funny I nor anyone at know we're asked what we wanted. They s

Surveyed a small number and then made up the rest . Just like the do with age of the deer taken

i haven't seen a single thing posted here or from DEC that it won't help the herd in any way, so that's your opinion or twist.  DEC certainly wouldn't propose something to the standing commissioner that was detrimental to the herd, so that AR plan surely isn't.  So now we're left with hunter values and interests.  A substantial undertaking done by DEC and Cornell concluded that ARs is what most hunters want according to this email that went all the way to the top.  Separate from DEC aging deer and what they do on their own.  DEC together with Cornell, an ivy league institution, determined a sample size of NY hunters to survey that would yield statistically accurate results.  They didn't ask me either, but they didn't have to.  What I didn't know is that apparently NY state's deer management decisions and ivy league surveys aren't warranted unless they get you and your friends input first. sorry i didn't know.

[gjs4]

i haven't seen a single thing posted here or from DEC that it won't help the herd in any way, so that's your opinion or twist.  DEC certainly wouldn't propose something to the standing commissioner that was detrimental to the herd, so that AR plan surely isn't.  So now we're left with hunter values and interests.  A substantial undertaking done by DEC and Cornell concluded that ARs is what most hunters want according to this email that went all the way to the top.  Separate from DEC aging deer and what they do on their own.  DEC together with Cornell, an ivy league institution, determined a sample size of NY hunters to survey that would yield statistically accurate results.  They didn't ask me either, but they didn't have to.  What I didn't know is that apparently NY state's deer management decisions and ivy league surveys aren't warranted unless they get you and your friends input first. sorry i didn't know.

I back the ARs, not emphatically but due support the bill rather than oppose. However, if you have faith in the NYSDEC (or subsidized their sect of Cornell) or feel this isn't solely cultural, you really need to do some reading, fact comparison and actualization.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[DirtTime]

22 hours ago, stubby68 said:

      Actually there are  28 pages of arguing about each other's opinions. 

That will never change. Arguing is what we do best here in NYS, and especially on this site. 

8 hours ago, growalot said:

stubby..... let me re-post that link again...See that and a few others, and some of my links seem to be sailing by a few heads. The only ones making it through the blinders, are the ones they have been spoon fed as to their effectiveness everywhere.

http://www.deeranddeerhunting.com/articles/facts-antler-restrictions-deer-hunting

Just read that growie, made a lot of sense when looking at the whole picture, not just what's in people's own back yards. 

 

 

[stubby68]

1 hour ago, dbHunterNY said:

i haven't seen a single thing posted here or from DEC that it won't help the herd in any way, so that's your opinion or twist.  DEC certainly wouldn't propose something to the standing commissioner that was detrimental to the herd, so that AR plan surely isn't.  So now we're left with hunter values and interests.  A substantial undertaking done by DEC and Cornell concluded that ARs is what most hunters want according to this email that went all the way to the top.  Separate from DEC aging deer and what they do on their own.  DEC together with Cornell, an ivy league institution, determined a sample size of NY hunters to survey that would yield statistically accurate results.  They didn't ask me either, but they didn't have to.  What I didn't know is that apparently NY state's deer management decisions and ivy league surveys aren't warranted unless they get you and your friends input first. sorry i didn't know.

           What twist? It says for the hunter. Where does it say for the herd? I'm not twisting a thing. If it were for the herd then why not say tha? You are the one twisting it and your opinion is to put words where there are none. You think they wouldn't propose anything that wasn't good for the herd. What you posted does not say that ,it specifically says for the hunter.  Just because you think they wouldn't propose something not good for the herd does not mean they will not.

             As for the survay. They can only say that the majority of the hunter surveyed want it. Then they guess the rest. Unless they survey all hunters the can not in any way say the majority want it. No more then they can say the majority of bucks killed are 1 1/2 years old when the actually only check a small number and the rest they count points, or know the number of deer in the herd or how many were killed.   Putting the word Cornell in it still only makes it a guess and nothing more. Well it does make it an expensive guess. Until they survey every hunter and age test every deer they will not have accurate numbers of either. Heck look at the presidential election . Experts predicted that Trump would lose because of surveys and stats. We all know how that worked for them. Sample size prove nothing.for there surveys to have warrant they need to ask ALL HUNTERS. Not just a few hand picked ones who were asked questions that were leading at best. Any survey taken on a small sample size of the population can be made to show what ever the desired out come that is wanted. Funny how this survey was done yet we never hear of anyone who got it or anyone who knows someone who knows another who got the survey. One would think that forums like this and all the other social media sites someone would know someone who took it.

[growalot]

DBH....I can't post quotes but you haven't seen one word....?  Well it is in bright red script...back on page 6 in this thread Docs post. Also in an interview as I recall in the NYODN with Jeremy Hurst....Neither are hard to find.

[dbHunterNY]

1 hour ago, growalot said:

DBH....I can't post quotes but you haven't seen one word....?  Well it is in bright red script...back on page 6 in this thread Docs post. Also in an interview as I recall in the NYODN with Jeremy Hurst....Neither are hard to find.

unless it was someone pulling assumptions out their rear end then yes i haven't seen a single word.  you apparently skimmed over stuff or didn't see everything.  i'm not going to treat you like you're in remedial reading though and tell you to go back and read it and responses.  i responded saying i've actually had conversations with Hurst (who chooses to hunt in QDM co-op with antler restrictions).  I made a point that Hurst didn't say there was no benefit and it was based on us excepting what DEC data shows at a statewide level (which many here seem to is a crap shoot when you start zooming in to look at WMUs).  that was page 7.  on page 8 Doc agreed that it didn't say there was no benefit at all.

stubby is saying it won't help the herd in any way.  from what i've read, seen happen in the real world, and have been told by multiple whitetail biologists is that's not true.

[dbHunterNY]

8 hours ago, stubby68 said:

           What twist? It says for the hunter. Where does it say for the herd? I'm not twisting a thing. If it were for the herd then why not say tha? You are the one twisting it and your opinion is to put words where there are none. You think they wouldn't propose anything that wasn't good for the herd. What you posted does not say that ,it specifically says for the hunter.  Just because you think they wouldn't propose something not good for the herd does not mean they will not.

             As for the survay. They can only say that the majority of the hunter surveyed want it. Then they guess the rest. Unless they survey all hunters the can not in any way say the majority want it. No more then they can say the majority of bucks killed are 1 1/2 years old when the actually only check a small number and the rest they count points, or know the number of deer in the herd or how many were killed.   Putting the word Cornell in it still only makes it a guess and nothing more. Well it does make it an expensive guess. Until they survey every hunter and age test every deer they will not have accurate numbers of either. Heck look at the presidential election . Experts predicted that Trump would lose because of surveys and stats. We all know how that worked for them. Sample size prove nothing.for there surveys to have warrant they need to ask ALL HUNTERS. Not just a few hand picked ones who were asked questions that were leading at best. Any survey taken on a small sample size of the population can be made to show what ever the desired out come that is wanted. Funny how this survey was done yet we never hear of anyone who got it or anyone who knows someone who knows another who got the survey. One would think that forums like this and all the other social media sites someone would know someone who took it.

if you're going to shoot down my herd impact assumptions that aren't mentioned in the that link to a DEC email, you should realize you shouldn't say it doesn't say that and then make some herd impact assumptions yourself.

political polls are largely bias and used to sway speculation of support.  the whole time i saw very conservative polls show Trump was doing well and others tagged as liberal showing the exact opposite.  in this case there's no agenda.  if there was one it'd be to go with voluntary restrictions.  they should but really don't need to ask ALL hunter to get an idea.  some wouldn't even give you an answer, because they don't know what they are or any impacts they'd have on their hunting.  you can think what you want but implying you know what's up and both an state wildlife agency and an ivy league institution are simply guessing is only blowing smoke up your own rear end.  

i've heard of people getting it.  there's been a couple cases in these forums have posted they got it.  just because someone didn't post they got it doesn't mean nobody did.  there's people that read through these forums and never make a single post.

[stubby68]

34 minutes ago, dbHunterNY said:

unless it was someone pulling assumptions out their rear end then yes i haven't seen a single word.  you apparently skimmed over stuff or didn't see everything.  i'm not going to treat you like you're in remedial reading though and tell you to go back and read it and responses.  i responded saying i've actually had conversations with Hurst (who chooses to hunt in QDM co-op with antler restrictions).  I made a point that Hurst didn't say there was no benefit and it was based on us excepting what DEC data shows at a statewide level (which many here seem to is a crap shoot when you start zooming in to look at WMUs).  that was page 7.  on page 8 Doc agreed that it didn't say there was no benefit at all.

stubby is saying it won't help the herd in any way.  from what i've read, seen happen in the real world, and have been told by multiple whitetail biologists is that's not true.

                          I am saying that it won't help the herd in the way or to the extant that everyone pushing it claims it will. I am also saying that what you posted does not say it is being done for the herd. It says it is for the hunter. Almost every statement made about it being good or that it needs to be done ends in the words older bucks with bigger antlers. Antlers do not show age of buck yet that is what is being pushed as the yard stick for ageing. Nobody is even thinking of all the other affects AR have and the problems that can come from it. Now and in the future. There article out there that explain the problems with AR and that places that tried it also dropped it and ended up better off. Why is it always buck management and never whole herd management? The only time the whole herd is mentioned is when trophies are brought up and then someone says big antlers are good for the whole herd. Yet Noone can explain why these big antlers are good for anything other then the hunter. How many do you think would  push for a or even hunt if p&y or b&c or any of the big buck clubs went away and bucks could no longer be mounted and braced about. Instead of AR why wouldn't  one buck rule help more. Then guys wouldn't get 3 bucks a year and that would leave them to grow get older and bigger.

     Hurst went on a quality decoration management hunt and said the words they wanted to hear. You say he didn't say thereally was no benefit but did he say that there was a definite benefit or that down the road AR could turn around and bite us in the rear end?

         I'm not against changing things but how about trying something that does not have to be about bigger antlers and more of them. Like I said try limiting the number of bucks killed not the age. Killing all older and leaving all younger does not look like the right approach. Killing less of each age class looks and sounds better. Just limit the number of bucks one guy can kill and give them a choice to take a doe with that tag instead of not using it at all.

 

[dbHunterNY]

10 hours ago, gjs4 said:

I back the ARs, not emphatically but due support the bill rather than oppose. However, if you have faith in the NYSDEC (or subsidized their sect of Cornell) or feel this isn't solely cultural, you really need to do some reading, fact comparison and actualization.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

i think culture here in NY has a lot to do with it.  you can't shoot down DEC credibility and then say it's solely cultural, because that would be accepting DEC's based prognosis saying the deer herd isn't in need of anything.

[stubborn1VT]

The surveys I've seen are woefully inadequate.  I don't think they have asked a realistic cross section of all hunters.  This makes them an educated guess.  I think a large portion of NY hunters will be poorly represented in regards to ARs, and I have strong misgivings about forcing regulation on other hunters.  The only other issue I have, is the motivations for legislation like this seems to be elitist and dishonest.  I think many push for changes like this for selfish reasons, under the guise of concern for herd health. I would have expected a more conservative "to each his own" attitude from hunters, not a self centered push to drag all hunters along toward a single point of view with more regulation. It is sad to see the division among hunters, and it won't help the sport.  If the majority of NY hunters are fed up with deer hunting as it exists now, then it's certainly time for a change.  If not, then forcing ARs will only serve to further divide and weaken the hunting population of the state.  

[Culvercreek hunt club]

OK, I am saying uncle. If this thread has done anything for me it has shown me that there may be people hunting that shouldn't be and possibly own guns and that is scarier yet. Where do I sign up for the mandatory AR's?

[stubborn1VT]

13 minutes ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

OK, I am saying uncle. If this thread has done anything for me it has shown me that there may be people hunting that shouldn't be and possibly own guns and that is scarier yet. Where do I sign up for the mandatory AR's?

That's my issue with this debate.  It is an ugly thread, but I haven't read anything that warrants that kind of judgement.  I don't care if you want mandatory AR's, and I certainly wouldn't put you down as an individual for it.  What gives you the right? I find that arrogant and elitist.  You know better than the other guy, and he's a menace? Come on.  I might disagree with you, but I'm not going to say you shouldn't be hunting.  We need more hunters, not fewer.  

[dbHunterNY]

12 minutes ago, stubborn1VT said:

The surveys I've seen are woefully inadequate.  I don't think they have asked a realistic cross section of all hunters.  This makes them an educated guess.  I think a large portion of NY hunters will be poorly represented in regards to ARs, and I have strong misgivings about forcing regulation on other hunters.  The only other issue I have, is the motivations for legislation like this seems to be elitist and dishonest.  I think many push for changes like this for selfish reasons, under the guise of concern for herd health. I would have expected a more conservative "to each his own" attitude from hunters, not a self centered push to drag all hunters along toward a single point of view with more regulation. It is sad to see the division among hunters, and it won't help the sport.  If the majority of NY hunters are fed up with deer hunting as it exists now, then it's certainly time for a change.  If not, then forcing ARs will only serve to further divide and weaken the hunting population of the state.  

they've done numerous polls and surveys that show more hunters than not want ARs.  they have also surveyed the areas in NY where ARs are now and hunters want them to stay.  not many seem to be accepting of surveys so maybe next time opportunity they have to revamp the licensing system and online license sales they do what Buckmaster7600 suggested and have straight foward questions to get results more people would accept.  then again if it didn't match what DEC planned to do i'm sure it just wouldn't be made public and someone would FOIL it anyway.  hard to believe so many will shoot down DEC credibility, processes, data, etc. and then still use it as beyond contestation to prove a point.  i agree it's too bad any discussions on here to make things better ends up being p*ssing match back and forth.

[Four Season Whitetail's]

25 minutes ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

OK, I am saying uncle. If this thread has done anything for me it has shown me that there may be people hunting that shouldn't be and possibly own guns and that is scarier yet. Where do I sign up for the mandatory AR's?

Great Words!    I was ready for this like 28 pages ago....Except i i believe i signed up for mandatory Ar way before these pages were started.

[dbHunterNY]

21 minutes ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

OK, I am saying uncle. If this thread has done anything for me it has shown me that there may be people hunting that shouldn't be and possibly own guns and that is scarier yet. Where do I sign up for the mandatory AR's?

there is no signing up for it.  DEC doesn't do trial and error anymore.  they tried the 2 weeks doe only and the sky almost fell, it failed, and probably did irreparable damage to hunting and the deer herd .....despite DEC learned something through implementation to move foward.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

1 hour ago, stubborn1VT said:

That's my issue with this debate.  It is an ugly thread, but I haven't read anything that warrants that kind of judgement.  I don't care if you want mandatory AR's, and I certainly wouldn't put you down as an individual for it.  What gives you the right? I find that arrogant and elitist.  You know better than the other guy, and he's a menace? Come on.  I might disagree with you, but I'm not going to say you shouldn't be hunting.  We need more hunters, not fewer.  

Well I think the lack of mental ability to follow a simple thought may speak volumes. I have been one of the most vocal on here over the years against any mandatory AR's but to say there is no benefit to having a more natural age structure, a condensed rut and how that plays into winter survival blows my mind. The only question is, and this is where i departed from mandatory, would it be detrimental to the herd if it didn't happen. That answer is no and where it becomes more of a social issue. the deer are doing fine, could it be better? yes. is it worth the loss of hunter choice to make the extra step? Well that is what we are "discussing". But to discount clear benefits is either just  stubborn or incapable of grasping the concepts.  

Edited March 28, 2017 by Culvercreek hunt club

[Culvercreek hunt club]

14 minutes ago, dbHunterNY said:

there is no signing up for it.  DEC doesn't do trial and error anymore.  they tried the 2 weeks doe only and the sky almost fell, it failed, and probably did irreparable damage to hunting and the deer herd .....despite DEC learned something through implementation to move foward.

oh for Christ sake that was sarcasm. 

[dbHunterNY]

30 minutes ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

OK, I am saying uncle. If this thread has done anything for me it has shown me that there may be people hunting that shouldn't be and possibly own guns and that is scarier yet. Where do I sign up for the mandatory AR's?

for amusement please send a letter of acceptance to art kirsh and john rybinski.  i can think of others but they'll do for now.

[dbHunterNY]

10 minutes ago, dbHunterNY said:

for amusement please send a letter of acceptance to art kirsh and john rybinski.  i can think of others but they'll do for now.

 

11 minutes ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

oh for Christ sake that was sarcasm. 

haha... then read this post.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

10 minutes ago, dbHunterNY said:

for amusement please send a letter of acceptance to art kirsh and john rybinski.  i can think of others but they'll do for now.

I don't think Art will accept my comments any longer...lol 

[NFA-ADK]

You could ping pong back and forth for another 30 pages if you want but simply put its an opinion on what is best for the deer.  Is anything 100% for deer?  No writing here will change someone because we all see different things in our woods.

Remember perspective, if I see 10 and 12 point bucks running around I will not think AR is needed yet if I only see 4 point bucks I will demand it.  That's just one perspective.

The state will make a choice regardless of what is posted here.  Continue if you want but I think many of you have better things to do and pretty much all bases have been covered on the subject.  Nothing you post will change someone's perspective on the subject.

For me personally I do not think it will have an effect yet I would hate to stop the young, meat or inexperienced hunter from harvesting a young buck they are good eating!

Edited March 28, 2017 by NFA-ADK

[chas0218]

Both articles state it is working, but if you want to pick and choose what what articles you want to use as facts we all can do that.

Chas..... I don't know where you've been looking, but that's been happening throughout this entire tread.The difference is the ones you guys have posted up have been addressed and discussed. The ones opposite your views have been in large part ignored.

My point was that you and others can post articles stating it doesn't work and others and myself can post articles that say it does. Statistics can be skewed to favor one side or the other. We all saw this in the past presidential election. Many of you are advocating against them for reasons you say many of us advocating for them.
For example selfishness. I'm selfish because I want more mature deer harvested you and others are selfish because they want to shoot deer so the neighbor doesn't because you want to "fill your freezer"

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[stubborn1VT]

There is a wide variety of scenarios between wanting more mature deer and just "filling your freezer."

[growalot]

I read everything just fine thank you..

Quote

Posted March 3 · Report post

On 3/2/2017 at 4:40 AM, Doc said:

Whenever these discussions get going, I am always reminded of the following quote:

"According to DEC big game specialist Jeremy Hurst, while the DEC supports voluntary antler restriction programs, it does not see a critical biological need or compelling management advantage to mandate such restrictions, adding that agency biologists see no specific management benefit associated with the AR program and do not consider antler restrictions as necessary to improve herd condition."

the context that it's said is important. so isn't the use of the word "critical".  the deer herd as a whole and even in some areas isn't broken.  DEC has published data that says yearling/young buck harvest is continuously going down.  also that we have a 1.7:1 doe to buck ratio. it should be a big red flag if a biologist said buck to doe ratio is fine regardless of age structure. so in the context of their projection for the state as a whole it doesn't seem to be needed. however, no biologist should say that young bucks living isn't important from a biological perspective.  DEC big game staff has gotten called out by national biologists for loosely using the words "no biological need".  this isn't me simply pondering text on the internet.  i've talked to Hurst the big game leader about it and seen DEC staff get called out.  Hell, he himself sees benefits of antler restrictions.  He voluntarily continues to hunt property that has had voluntary antler restrictions for well over a decade.  notice it's all carefully worded as to not say there's no advantage or biological need at all.  also the biologists don't see a specific benefit with the AR program given their outlook where things are going. yet DEC openly admits there otherwise are multiple management benefit to the AR program, such as "A majority of hunters in the pilot AR units prefer that the program continue (report they did on June 2011, after they'd been in place)".  not posting this to really plead the case for this legislation, so much as provide food for thought.  DEC's outlook and stance as a group is based on state averages. some areas do quite well with the stats to show it, while others not nearly as much.  going back to the one size fits all approach doesn't work.  it'd be ignorant to ignore ARs would help some WMU's a great deal, despite for others it probably wouldn't do a darn thing.  hunter emotions are the only thing driving this to be a state wide thing. there's always a boarder to complain about no matter how far away.

 

---

I won't bother getting into word semantics with you or pulling out the definition of critical... I see it would be pointless...Also I will not address the fact you personally speaking to Hurst means as much as hear say evidence in a trial. Some one here mentioned twists and turns and well that whole thing seemed to have initiated quite the twister. BTW the print in big bold and underlined...THAT has nothing to do with herd health...and I do not care how hard you try to spin it it doesn't change that fact.