SB 4739 - Establishes the yearling buck protection program

[grampy]

30 pages now! Has anyone changed their point of view, by the content of 30 pages of he said, she said, this way, that way, and no way? Didn't think so. Carry on............................................................................

Yes, this is a hunting forum, open to discuss hunting related topics. But sometimes, the topic denigrates to the point of the proverbial dog chasing it's tail. I think valid points were made for both sides of the discussion in the first 10 pages. Guess I'll cruise on over to the beer or food thread...........................................................

[growalot]

Grampy...... it's just about people pushing other peoples buttons now and having ,not the last word but, apparently the last nasty word...there should have been a swan song on this some time ago as I mentioned.

[Grizz1219]

Wondering if anyone will stop hunting if this goes through or worse, break the law based on their beliefs??? 

[growalot]

Just read that link Stubby posted and I re-posted, that gives the answer right there....

[Rack Attack]

2 hours 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.  

Why is it when an augment comes up about hunting, the first thing stated is we need more hunters?  NY has one of the highest, if not the highest hunter density in the united states, why do we keep thinking we need more hunters?

[chas0218]

@growalot @stubby68

I'm calling both of you out on the post of the article and tell me if I'm wrong and why. 

If mandatory AR go through would you be the person the article talks about taking a 2.5 year old or would you hold out for a 3.5 year old that would likely be wandering the woods or even a 4.5 year old?

Below is my take on the article. 

For those that didn't read the article that Grow has mentioned about 4 times, the article it highlights those hunters that took yearlings went to 2.5 year olds but one thing I don't like is it lacks any data from the states it mentions. Without the data (not talking statistics I want raw data) to back that those yearling hunters only killed 2.5 year old deer it is only an assumption and we all now what happens when we assume things. I think the article is well written and offers some great suggestions but I don't think it is really any different than what we have going on here more opinion based thinking. Take it for what it is worth but that article doesn't provide any proof that they don't work or that people just end up shooting 2.5 year olds vs the yearling. 

I think more bucks will start to make it through the seasons being after those 2.5 years they will be much smarter at avoiding hunters and become educated by scents, movement, ect. It might actually make people "hunt" instead of just standing on the side of a hedgerow and have people scare deer to them.

Edited March 28, 2017 by chas0218

[Death From Above]

22 minutes ago, growalot said:

Grampy...... it's just about people pushing other peoples buttons now and having ,not the last word but, apparently the last nasty word...there should have been a swan song on this some time ago as I mentioned.

That is correct Growalot, you did type that a few pages ago.  But then again, you have posted probably 9-10 ten more times again since then, and I suspect it might be possible that those posts were not all designed to calm down the debate or the discussions. 

Maybe everyone is just waiting for you to lead the way, and sing your swan song, and say good by the thread first.  ???  Kidding grow, kidding....

While I may not have a lot of posts on this site, it doesn't mean that I haven't been reading a good bit on here over the past several years.  I think that part of the reason I hadn't typically posted a lot was the fear of being dragged in to the depths on a few topics that I care deeply about (easy to see above as I couldn't help defending what I felt was an attack on the motives of many in our hunting ranks).  For this reason I am the last to criticize the direction that this thread has gone, or keeps coming back around to.

There is a lot of good stuff on this site as well, I believe.  Some great thoughts, ideas, knowledge, suggestions, etc.  My favorite might be viewing trail cam pics, seeing success pics and stories, and using info others provide on rut observation to see how they line up with what I am seeing from my stands.  I'll even suggest that once in a while it is great to see the passion displayed that we have for our hunting here in NY.  While a thread like this may not serve to change many minds, I hope it shows all of us that there are opinions and strong desires on both sides, and maybe we should consider them at times as somehow legitimate, even if they don't mirror our own beliefs or the theories we believe to be true. 

Whatever happens out of this topic, whether some legislative action goes through, or if "education" continues to be implemented in some fashion by the DEC...I just hope that it doesn't rip us apart too much along some sort of divide that would hurt our group of outdoor enthusiasts as a whole.  Maybe if AR was ever to get passed, then this forum would serve another function...a place to vent.  Currently, without AR in place, it seems that this goes on from the other side quite a bit right now. 

If AR or bag limits are not ever changed in NY, the deer will continue to live and most of us will continue to hunt them.  Likewise, like I suggested within my first post 50 pages ago in this thread, if AR is put in place, the deer will continue to live and most of us will continue to hunt them.  I have to believe that if it ever came to it, we as hunters would come together when absolutely necessary, and this thread isn't representative of a group that is incapable of agreeing and supporting each other when it becomes vital. 

[growalot]

Oh I agree...for the most part this will just be back shelved in our memories to be pulled out as an occasional " remember when" post...As I have said, as far as hunting it won't really effect me. My issue was never the AR's themselves but the right to have hunting be the hunters personal experience and not others...but also the way it's happening. Because of the way it's happening I can see all the satellite issues that will eventually have an impact on me and other hunters as well. That's not so acceptable.  I look at many issues as wheels... you have a hub(idea) and from that hub, spokes (other ideas that arise from the original) that lead to the Felloe's(hunters and others). When you have one or 2 bad spokes leaving that hub ...it can bend and harm the Felloe's...causing  the entire wheel to wobble.I believe that is what this has the potential for.

[stubby68]

44 minutes ago, chas0218 said:

@growalot @stubby68

I'm calling both of you out on the post of the article and tell me if I'm wrong and why. 

If mandatory AR go through would you be the person the article talks about taking a 2.5 year old or would you hold out for a 3.5 year old that would likely be wandering the woods or even a 4.5 year old?

Below is my take on the article. 

For those that didn't read the article that Grow has mentioned about 4 times, the article it highlights those hunters that took yearlings went to 2.5 year olds but one thing I don't like is it lacks any data from the states it mentions. Without the data (not talking statistics I want raw data) to back that those yearling hunters only killed 2.5 year old deer it is only an assumption and we all now what happens when we assume things. I think the article is well written and offers some great suggestions but I don't think it is really any different than what we have going on here more opinion based thinking. Take it for what it is worth but that article doesn't provide any proof that they don't work or that people just end up shooting 2.5 year olds vs the yearling. 

I think more bucks will start to make it through the seasons being after those 2.5 years they will be much smarter at avoiding hunters and become educated by scents, movement, ect. It might actually make people "hunt" instead of just standing on the side of a hedgerow and have people scare deer to them.

                           I have already stated I will not change what or how I hunt regardless or it passing. I have also stated that

In the past I have passed on older bucks and taken younger ones. Big old one are nice to look at but not much for eating.

          You are or rent there is no data given to prove the number of hunters that actually took 2.5 year olds. However that is just one of the problems pointed out in the artical. Also it is not different then NY saying most of the bucks killed are 1.5 years old. Unless every b UK taken is aged there is no way of knowing a true number everything else is a guess. There are a lot of 1.5 year olds out  there the would fall well out side the AR restrictions. I have many 8  and 10 points to prove that. So again just using AR to control an issue that is not as bad as some would have you believe is not going to work. Artical also says that the AR was tried for a long time in places before it was determined to not be working and ultimately dropped for better solutions. Why not go to a 1 buck limit? Total number of bucks killed would be lower thus leaving more of all age classes for the next year. And maybe it might get more doe killed in areas where there numbers are out of controll.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

17 minutes ago, stubby68 said:

                           I have already stated I will not change what or how I hunt regardless or it passing. I have also stated that

In the past I have passed on older bucks and taken younger ones. Big old one are nice to look at but not much for eating.     

Stubby, am I reading that right? You have stated you like shooting younger bucks. so if 4 point AR is in place and that basket 6 walks by at 3pm on the last day of the season and you have the buck tag in your pocket, what's you move?

Edited March 28, 2017 by Culvercreek hunt club

[dbHunterNY]

I read everything just fine thank you..

Posted March 3 · Report post
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.

Culvercreek doc and others read through the "semantics" just fine and still made their case. You've made it clear you're not willing to accept anything short of someone from DEC telling you directly, if you even accept that. So ask Hurst or whomever about whatever yourself then. Specifics are important though otherwise you won't get a specific answer. Semantics I know.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[growalot]

Oh please ask me ask me....I'd get out the charts from the QDM forum and look to see if that was 11/2 old buck or a 2 1/2 year old... Then not shoot it because it's illegal, knowing it really didn't make a difference anyways...because there were a whole bunch of 4pt's one side 1 1/2 's taken by others anyways. Oh mis spoke it's this chart

http://www.outdooralabama.com/sites/default/files/FieldJudgingLiveDeer.pdf

Edited March 28, 2017 by growalot

[stubby68]

4 hours ago, dbHunterNY said:

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.

        I never said I know more the anyone. What you posted does not say for the good of the herd it says for the good of the hunter. You want me to see something that is not there. You are on Cornell like 8th is a lollypop. I don't care what the status is. There study was done by asking a certain group of hand picked hunters a very small number when compared to the number of actually hunters in the state questions. These questions were worded and asked in such a way as to get the answer that was being looked for. Everything after was a big guess. Just the small s a moly number of those asked was not enough alone to say the majority. If you have 50 people in a room and ask 20 of them if they want pizza for a dinner and 15 of them say yes that would be the majority of 20 people in the room you didn't ask all so maybe the 30 you did not ask wanted something else but by not asking you never know. You can not claim a majority rule unless the majority have spoken which they havent.

                 I have asked many times for someone to explain why older bigger bucks are better for a herd rather younger smaller ones. I have seen prove b that it doesn't hurt and it doesn't help. Yet not one person can explain why letting all the bucks get older and bigger is better. They always end up saying the same v thing because bigger antlers is better.giving me something that has nothing to do with the hunter and everything to do with the herd maybe then I can see your point. 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Oh please ask me ask me....I'd get out the charts from the QDM forum and look to see if that was 11/2 old buck or a 2 1/2 year old... Then not shoot it because it's illegal, knowing it really didn't make a difference anyways...because there were a whole bunch of 4pt's one side 1 1/2 's taken by others anyways. Oh mis spoke it's this chart
http://www.outdooralabama.com/sites/default/files/FieldJudgingLiveDeer.pdf

Grow. lol he ARs will never protect 100% of year and a half olds unless they are so restrictive that no one will stand for them. I believe the 3 point areas and 4 point areas were selected because it will cover the majority of them. Out here by is a 3 point rule would save 50% of them. We have a lot of 6 7 and 8 point yearlings. Where I grew up in central NY that didn't happen much.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

        I never said I know more the anyone. What you posted does not say for the good of the herd it says for the good of the hunter. You want me to see something that is not there. You are on Cornell like 8th is a lollypop. I don't care what the status is. There study was done by asking a certain group of hand picked hunters a very small number when compared to the number of actually hunters in the state questions. These questions were worded and asked in such a way as to get the answer that was being looked for. Everything after was a big guess. Just the small s a moly number of those asked was not enough alone to say the majority. If you have 50 people in a room and ask 20 of them if they want pizza for a dinner and 15 of them say yes that would be the majority of 20 people in the room you didn't ask all so maybe the 30 you did not ask wanted something else but by not asking you never know. You can not claim a majority rule unless the majority have spoken which they havent.
                 I have asked many times for someone to explain why older bigger bucks are better for a herd rather younger smaller ones. I have seen prove b that it doesn't hurt and it doesn't help. Yet not one person can explain why letting all the bucks get older and bigger is better. They always end up saying the same v thing because bigger antlers is better.giving me something that has nothing to do with the hunter and everything to do with the herd maybe then I can see your point. 

Stubby. Real question and not busting balls. These animals evolved before our major human population explosion. They developed their breeding and birthing schedules for specific purposes. Look at deer. Salmon. Even seas turtles along with many other species. What benefit is there to make he females dropping the young of the years in a very short period of time?

[growalot]

I know...but I have to tell you reading this entire thread...I really have to say I get the impression...way too many do not realize, 1 1/2 yr olds develop more than 4pt's total.

[Grizz1219]

Still believe it should be a 1 buck per year limit... End of story.. you want to shoot a spike shoot it. .but you are done.. 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

11 minutes ago, Grizz1219 said:

Still believe it should be a 1 buck per year limit... End of story.. you want to shoot a spike shoot it. .but you are done.. 

I agree with the one buck as well. That is how it was growing up. shoot one during bow and it was over. I wish it wasn't death buy 1,000 cuts with DEC. I would like to see a real hard look at things and come out with a very comprehensive plan. I've said it many times before, I would also like to see all antlerless permits issued in the lottery system and available to any hunter. if an area can withstand any antlerless harvest then the gun hunters should have the same possibility as a ML or a bow. 

[stubborn1VT]

I don't mind the idea of a 1 buck limit.  It still gives a hunter a choice, unlike an AR mandated by someone else.  

We need more hunters because there are more antis.  It's really that simple.  Strength in numbers.  If you aren't aware that hunting is losing popularity in the US, then I suggest you do some research.  

[Rack Attack]

57 minutes ago, stubborn1VT said:

We need more hunters because there are more antis.  It's really that simple.  Strength in numbers.  If you aren't aware that hunting is losing popularity in the US, then I suggest you do some research.  

I'm sorry, but NY is more than doing it's part in hunter numbers.  Some of the other states need to step up their game... Hunter numbers are a non-issue in NYS.

[land 1]

Dont know if it is true just saw on another site  that this bill died in albany and wont be approved again dont know the truth behind it but thats what i read. It also said the crossbow bill allowing the use of them during all bow season is still being considered

[moog5050]

34 minutes ago, Rack Attack said:

I'm sorry, but NY is more than doing it's part in hunter numbers.  Some of the other states need to step up their game... Hunter numbers are a non-issue in NYS.

Rack

It may be more of a concern about encouraging youth to hunt vs. total hunter numbers.  There are clearly a lot hunters in NY.  I don't know for certain, but I suspect that there are less youth hunting now than 30 years ago.  Assuming that's true, there are many factors that play into that unrelated to actual hunting.  But, it would be nice if a youngster starting out could shoot a spike if he/she desired and it gets them excited about hunting.  It could be discouraging for that youth to hunt several seasons and see bucks but nothing that he/she could shoot.  Does that result in someone that gives it up - who knows.  But it would be nice if they had the choice.  I know when I bring a kid fishing, I am looking for action more than the trophy to keep them entertained. 

I know my comment is hypothetical, but I could see ARs as deterring youth participation and, as a result, hunter numbers a generation or 2 from now.  Its hard enough to keep youth interested with today's fast paced, immediate gratification mentality.

[Rack Attack]

Moog, I don't disagree with you.  Any AR I have seen has exceptions for youth hunters to address this.

I feel what Stub is trying to indicate is that established hunters would back out or loose interest and I really don't feel that is the case or of concern.

Edited March 28, 2017 by Rack Attack

[Culvercreek hunt club]

1 hour ago, moog5050 said:

Rack

It may be more of a concern about encouraging youth to hunt vs. total hunter numbers.  There are clearly a lot hunters in NY.  I don't know for certain, but I suspect that there are less youth hunting now than 30 years ago.  Assuming that's true, there are many factors that play into that unrelated to actual hunting.  But, it would be nice if a youngster starting out could shoot a spike if he/she desired and it gets them excited about hunting.  It could be discouraging for that youth to hunt several seasons and see bucks but nothing that he/she could shoot.  Does that result in someone that gives it up - who knows.  But it would be nice if they had the choice.  I know when I bring a kid fishing, I am looking for action more than the trophy to keep them entertained. 

I know my comment is hypothetical, but I could see ARs as deterring youth participation and, as a result, hunter numbers a generation or 2 from now.  Its hard enough to keep youth interested with today's fast paced, immediate gratification mentality.

Let me take it one step further. Get a new adult hunter into the sport. In the last 5 years I have taken 4 adults out to hunt on multiple occasions that never hunted before. Two of them struck out in their first year. They felt the hunting experience was "ok". Their second year out one shot a spike and my BIL shot a nice 4 pointer. Their enthusiasm for the coming season is much higher than the first year.  

[Buckmaster7600]

Rack

It may be more of a concern about encouraging youth to hunt vs. total hunter numbers.  There are clearly a lot hunters in NY.  I don't know for certain, but I suspect that there are less youth hunting now than 30 years ago.  Assuming that's true, there are many factors that play into that unrelated to actual hunting.  But, it would be nice if a youngster starting out could shoot a spike if he/she desired and it gets them excited about hunting.  It could be discouraging for that youth to hunt several seasons and see bucks but nothing that he/she could shoot.  Does that result in someone that gives it up - who knows.  But it would be nice if they had the choice.  I know when I bring a kid fishing, I am looking for action more than the trophy to keep them entertained. 

I know my comment is hypothetical, but I could see ARs as deterring youth participation and, as a result, hunter numbers a generation or 2 from now.  Its hard enough to keep youth interested with today's fast paced, immediate gratification mentality.

Hypothetically what if new hunters were guaranteed doe permit for any weapon instead of allowing them to shoot a spike? This is something I have supported for a long time before AR's were considered. I live and hunt in areas where we don't get dmp's so I had to wait for a buck.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk