Sportsmen Strongly Support Yearling Buck Protection in NYSDEC Deer Plan

[G-Man]

"If people want large racks go to where the habitat supports it...the midwest".. its not the habitat its the hunter denisity. face it 1 person hunting 400 acres is a far cry from 20 or more hunting the same size in ny... No matter if you pass the little ones with ar.. the hunter density is to high so now these 2 year olds have 8pt and get shot(due to hunter density a lot get shot!) so now the 2 year old 6 pt makes it thru till next year but remains an 6 and does a lot of breeding. when hunter densities are high the inital ar will boost 2 yr old huntable bucks but with in a few short years the "high grading" will show itself rather quickly. For those large farms that can limit access yes they can have bigger deer on their property but it is due to limiting hunters per acre than passing little bucks. 5 hunters harvisting 5 bucks on 400 acres allows a lot of deer to make it thru. 20 hunters hunting the same and everyone shooting a buck..not much makes it thru to get bigger next year. Everyone hunts to get a buck! if deer didn't have horns how many would still hunt as hard as they do or at all?

[Doewhacker]

"Everyone hunts to get a buck! if deer didn't have horns how many would still hunt as hard as they do or at all?"

I would but I'm different I guess.

[burmjohn]

  I will agree that the data provided by those who want AR's implemented is very flawed and biased, yet the DEC seems to get suckered in by it over and over again.  In one statement the DEC says that AR's are not biologically necessary for a healthy deer herd, and in another they are proposing to implement them in more areas.  This just tells me that the DEC is talking from both sides of their mouths to try to please everyone and keep selling hunting licenses which is a significant source of revenue for them. 

Flawed and biased to you perhaps...

[steve863]

"Everyone hunts to get a buck! if deer didn't have horns how many would still hunt as hard as they do or at all?"

The horns don't go into the pot, so I could care less how big they are or if the deer had them at all.

[steve863]

  I will agree that the data provided by those who want AR's implemented is very flawed and biased, yet the DEC seems to get suckered in by it over and over again.  In one statement the DEC says that AR's are not biologically necessary for a healthy deer herd, and in another they are proposing to implement them in more areas.  This just tells me that the DEC is talking from both sides of their mouths to try to please everyone and keep selling hunting licenses which is a significant source of revenue for them. 

Flawed and biased to you perhaps...

Yes, to me and many other hunters also.

[G-Man]

Yes there are those who hunt to hunt, and some have evolved into that type of hunter    and doe is tasty! but just about anyone that started hunting it was their 1st buck they were after, a first year hunter will usually take a sm. buck over a doe everytime.

[burmjohn]

  I will agree that the data provided by those who want AR's implemented is very flawed and biased, yet the DEC seems to get suckered in by it over and over again.  In one statement the DEC says that AR's are not biologically necessary for a healthy deer herd, and in another they are proposing to implement them in more areas.  This just tells me that the DEC is talking from both sides of their mouths to try to please everyone and keep selling hunting licenses which is a significant source of revenue for them. 

Flawed and biased to you perhaps...

Yes, to me and many other hunters also.

And on the other side of the coin, the majority side according to every survey done that I've seen, support is there for AR. 

[SteveB]

So no real harvest numbers anyone?

Just percentages?

[Doewhacker]

So no real harvest numbers anyone?

Just percentages?

Good luck finding those numbers. Just like the hunter survey's, percentages don't work for every thing. The DEC can survey 1000 (just an example #) people and call it good or they could do a survey for all hunters and get a better idea by doing it at the time of the sale of the license.

DEC keeps repeating it , this is a social issue.

[steve863]

  I will agree that the data provided by those who want AR's implemented is very flawed and biased, yet the DEC seems to get suckered in by it over and over again.  In one statement the DEC says that AR's are not biologically necessary for a healthy deer herd, and in another they are proposing to implement them in more areas.  This just tells me that the DEC is talking from both sides of their mouths to try to please everyone and keep selling hunting licenses which is a significant source of revenue for them. 

Flawed and biased to you perhaps...

Yes, to me and many other hunters also.

And on the other side of the coin, the majority side according to every survey done that I've seen, support is there for AR.

I wouldn't argue that the support isn't high for AR's.  After all we live in an age where there are channels on TV dedicated to hunting and you can watch hunting shows 24/7 on them.  Many people have obviously been brainwashed into thinking that big racks are what's most important in hunting, which is quite sad.  Even if there are majorities supporting AR's the DEC has still been very reluctant to implement them in any other areas besides the few in the Catskills.  Why?  Because they realize that if even 30-40 % are against them, that would be a very LARGE segment of the hunting populace to offend and potentially lose as license purchasers.  While if up 70% of the hunters are truly trophy crazed and want AR's implemented, the DEC's thinking is that most of these people will still buy licenses and hunt no matter if AR's are implemented or not.  So my hunch is that they weigh all this and come to the decision which will be least costly to them, and that so far has been NOT to implement AR's in any new areas.

[growalot]

I don't think they are needed....If they enact them well not a problem for me right now...but I'd hate to see...my Dad in-law get up there in years...74 now and not be able to take a buck before his hunting "career"(lack of a better term coming to mind) comes to an end...

yes he was raised brown is down and it drives me a bit crazy ...but he was the one that put the time in....taught safety classes years ago..... got the family into hunting...sat on stand with the grand kids...made sure there would be a family camp for the future...he already earned what ever buck he wants...he's the reason we all hold off on smaller buck...because brown is down included a lot of doe and the work that goes into cleaning and preserving ..a lot of doe...if we take a buck...we want that work have a tad more meat and sweeter pics to go with it...I think many more hunters than not feel this way now

I believe there are enough ppl out there teaching young hunters to wait...Now in all honesty though...if the DEC screws up again and doe aren't out there like they have been in recent years...meat is meat and I would like the option to choose if push comes to shove

[burmjohn]

I wouldn't argue that the support isn't high for AR's.  After all we live in an age where there are channels on TV dedicated to hunting and you can watch hunting shows 24/7 on them.  Many people have obviously been brainwashed into thinking that big racks are what's most important in hunting, which is quite sad.  Even if there are majorities supporting AR's the DEC has still been very reluctant to implement them in any other areas besides the few in the Catskills.  Why?  Because they realize that if even 30-40 % are against them, that would be a very LARGE segment of the hunting populace to offend and potentially lose as license purchasers.  While if up 70% of the hunters are truly trophy crazed and want AR's implemented, the DEC's thinking is that most of these people will still buy licenses and hunt no matter if AR's are implemented or not.  So my hunch is that they weigh all this and come to the decision which will be least costly to them, and that so far has been NOT to implement AR's in any new areas.

First, not every area needs or would benefit from AR's.  Clearly there are area's in the state, perhaps less hunted or have different food sources or whatever the case may be where AR's are not needed.  I don't know anyone who is talking about trophies and other things as your biased and flawed view states.  Every AR supporter that I am in contact with both family, friends and hunting acquaintances don't have this distorted view they you depict above which I find quite laughable at best.  For me and the rest of those who I know are in it for a better and healthier herd and to at least have the opportunity to harvest a more mature buck.  And from what we have seen in our area, its doing exactly just that.  The 1.5's are living through for the most part, there now are larger deer to have an opportunity to hunt. AR's are not the ideal solution, however its what we have that can for the most part be enforced on a large scale.

[steve863]

The healthier herd theory is what is most laughable here.  Absolutely NO reason why a herd can't be just as healthy if you kill the 1 1/2 year olds or let them walk and kill them next year.  A 1 1/2 year old buck will pass on the same genetics at this age as he would at an older age, so why does letting them walk make things better for the herd?  What this theory does is make some hunters happy way more than it will actually benefit the health of the herd, but of course you guys will never admit it.  As I said, all of this is being rehashed again here.  This AR nonsense has been argued enough times already here.

[Geno C]

"Everyone hunts to get a buck! if deer didn't have horns how many would still hunt as hard as they do or at all?"

I would but I'm different I guess.

im pretty much obsessed with hunting in every way, so horns or not my butt will still be sitting in that tree... in fact i have no problem in the world with taking a doe. 

[Geno C]

  I will agree that the data provided by those who want AR's implemented is very flawed and biased, yet the DEC seems to get suckered in by it over and over again.  In one statement the DEC says that AR's are not biologically necessary for a healthy deer herd, and in another they are proposing to implement them in more areas.  This just tells me that the DEC is talking from both sides of their mouths to try to please everyone and keep selling hunting licenses which is a significant source of revenue for them. 

Flawed and biased to you perhaps...

Yes, to me and many other hunters also.

And on the other side of the coin, the majority side according to every survey done that I've seen, support is there for AR.

john and yet no body ever sees these polls actually take place. we just read about it. so where are these surveys even coming from? thats what i would like to know...

[burmjohn]

The healthier herd theory is what is most laughable here.  Absolutely NO reason why a herd can't be just as healthy if you kill the 1 1/2 year olds or let them walk and kill them next year.  A 1 1/2 year old buck will pass on the same genetics at this age as he would at an older age, so why does letting them walk make things better for the herd?  What this theory does is make some hunters happy way more than it will actually benefit the health of the herd, but of course you guys will never admit it.  As I said, all of this is being rehashed again here.  This AR nonsense has been argued enough times already here.

I love all the generalizing you do, its classic.  Allowing that 1.5 to walk will help allow for a natural sex / age structure for the herd and has numerous benefits.  Bigger, meatier (body mass), healthier bucks and help move to a move natural buck to doe ratio. Helps reduce the trickle rut, which causes late born fawns.  Just because yearling bucks are capable in breeding doesnt mean they should be the sole ones doing it.  If you read about deer biology, in a balanced herd the 1.5's only knock up about 1/3 of the does.

[burmjohn]

  I will agree that the data provided by those who want AR's implemented is very flawed and biased, yet the DEC seems to get suckered in by it over and over again.  In one statement the DEC says that AR's are not biologically necessary for a healthy deer herd, and in another they are proposing to implement them in more areas.  This just tells me that the DEC is talking from both sides of their mouths to try to please everyone and keep selling hunting licenses which is a significant source of revenue for them. 

Flawed and biased to you perhaps...

Yes, to me and many other hunters also.

And on the other side of the coin, the majority side according to every survey done that I've seen, support is there for AR.

john and yet no body ever sees these polls actually take place. we just read about it. so where are these surveys even coming from? thats what i would like to know...

The DEC contracted Cornell University to do the latest one.  I think they might have done the one before as well, but I'd have to check.

[Doc]

And yet it is pretty much impossible to ever find anyone who has been surveyed even though these kinds of surveys have supposedly been going on for decades (Cornell and all ... lol).

I really wonder what kind of credibility these surveys really have when you consider the tiny percent of population surveyed and the obvious failure of them to reach anyone that we know. But I guess, if policy is going to be made and laws passed, there has to be some attempt at legitimizing them. And holding up a survey done by a leading university probably is what keeps support for the things that the DEC wants to push. Who can question the findings of a university .... eh?

[wztirem]

And yet it is pretty much impossible to ever find anyone who has been surveyed even though these kinds of surveys have supposedly been going on for decades (Cornell and all ... lol).

I really wonder what kind of credibility these surveys really have when you consider the tiny percent of population surveyed and the obvious failure of them to reach anyone that we know. But I guess, if policy is going to be made and laws passed, there has to be some attempt at legitimizing them. And holding up a survey done by a leading university probably is what keeps support for the things that the DEC wants to push. Who can question the findings of a university .... eh?

These surveys remind me of the TV show, the Family Feud. As the host says "top one hundred answers are on the board" For anyone who has watched the show and played along, the answers to the questions are for the most part irreverent. Perhaps they could indicate where the survey was taken and what target group was polled to reach such conclusions.

Surveys undertaken by the DEC, based upon a finite sample where a particular target group are polled mean very little to me.

As many have posted to this site (ad nauseum), the DEC should extend to all license buyers the opportunity to cast a vote.

Anything less is unacceptable and cannot be taken seriously.

[wztirem]

The healthier herd theory is what is most laughable here.  Absolutely NO reason why a herd can't be just as healthy if you kill the 1 1/2 year olds or let them walk and kill them next year.  A 1 1/2 year old buck will pass on the same genetics at this age as he would at an older age, so why does letting them walk make things better for the herd?  What this theory does is make some hunters happy way more than it will actually benefit the health of the herd, but of course you guys will never admit it.  As I said, all of this is being rehashed again here.  This AR nonsense has been argued enough times already here.

I love all the generalizing you do, its classic.  Allowing that 1.5 to walk will help allow for a natural sex / age structure for the herd and has numerous benefits.  Bigger, meatier (body mass), healthier bucks and help move to a move natural buck to doe ratio. Helps reduce the trickle rut, which causes late born fawns.  Just because yearling bucks are capable in breeding doesnt mean they should be the sole ones doing it.  If you read about deer biology, in a balanced herd the 1.5's only knock up about 1/3 of the does.

Seems to me if you target the older bucks, the 1.5 yr old bucks will still be breeding at the same rate or perhaps even more.

Look at Pa, AR led to HR.

As Steve said, the DEC wants deer killed.

John, if AR can be tailored to a specific DMU's where real deer numbers could be controlled (and accounted for) and the habitat could support a given poipulation, AR may suit the plan.

However, since hunters do not report their kills the DEC cannot accurately estimate the deer population in a given area.

AR just for the sake of appeasing a particular group without sound research, in the long run will perhaps be a mistake.

AR ultimately will result in HR. I can hear the complaints already (No deer).

[nyantler]

The healthier herd theory is what is most laughable here.  Absolutely NO reason why a herd can't be just as healthy if you kill the 1 1/2 year olds or let them walk and kill them next year.  A 1 1/2 year old buck will pass on the same genetics at this age as he would at an older age, so why does letting them walk make things better for the herd?  What this theory does is make some hunters happy way more than it will actually benefit the health of the herd, but of course you guys will never admit it.  As I said, all of this is being rehashed again here.  This AR nonsense has been argued enough times already here.

It is very laughable to a person that understands nothing about it... yes... first, it is not a theory... a theory is a thought of what might happen or could happen, but has not yet been proven... AR's and herd health is not a theory, the concept of deer management has been proven time and time again in State after State... and it's benefit to herd health can be seen in any of the management studies that have taken place in NY over the last couple decades... the reason AR's is being rehashed is maybe because there are still those of you that don't get it... what needs to be admitted here is that you simply do not like AR's and refuse to learn anything about deer management that might make you understand better... having said that.. I don't think that herd health is the real concern in NY for AR's... but more for age structure in the buck population

[jusputtn]

Do you support AR's?

Poll Response No. 1.- No

Funny that I've never happened upon an article proclaiming the biological benefits of AR to a deer heard.  If it were that great I'd expect to be bombarded with them. 

Observation: The deer heard has grown considerably in the last 20 years across the areas of NY without an AR limit. ('cept maybe the Adirondacks, not sure about that area)  IMHO, AR's are merely to benefit the vanity of a few.

Anyone one who wants AR's are free to set their own personal limits.  Enjoy but leave me out of it.

[burmjohn]

Do you support AR's?

Poll Response No. 1.- No

Funny that I've never happened upon an article proclaiming the biological benefits of AR to a deer heard.  If it were that great I'd expect to be bombarded with them. 

Observation: The deer heard has grown considerably in the last 20 years across the areas of NY without an AR limit. ('cept maybe the Adirondacks, not sure about that area)  IMHO, AR's are merely to benefit the vanity of a few.

Anyone one who wants AR's are free to set their own personal limits.  Enjoy but leave me out of it.

I take it you have not read one single article on AR's then.  Again, its not about growing the herd, its about balanced healthy herd with a solid age structure, there is a difference.

[SteveMcD]

As Secretary for the Federation of Dutchess County Fish & Game Clubs, I sent my letter of endorsement and accolades to the NYSDEC for a job well done on the 5 Year Deer Management Plan. I believe they can go further,  such as expansion of the Crossbow either into the Archery Season or it's own season.

Regarding Antler Restrictions.. I am all for it. Mainly, because it is good for the deer herd. You will also experience a better quality hunt. I have hunted QDM areas in Region 3 and just the experience is so much better. You get a higher quality hunter and lose the Brown is Down - Out House Channel Arm Chair quarterbacks in the process. Specifically, Ulster County I can remember sitting for hours and sometimes days for a small spike to come by! When AR regulations are implemented the first year is tough, but the quality of the deer goes up from there, thereafter. What I am AGAINST... is the mentality that if it is good for my Region or WMU than it will be good for the whole state. Home Rule needs to take precedent over mandatory statewide regulations (particularly where Antler Restrictions are concerned. What is good for Cattauragus County, may not be applicable or good for say Orange County). 

[Dave]

Do you support AR's?

Poll Response No. 1.- No

Funny that I've never happened upon an article proclaiming the biological benefits of AR to a deer heard.  If it were that great I'd expect to be bombarded with them. 

Observation: The deer heard has grown considerably in the last 20 years across the areas of NY without an AR limit. ('cept maybe the Adirondacks, not sure about that area)  IMHO, AR's are merely to benefit the vanity of a few.

Anyone one who wants AR's are free to set their own personal limits.  Enjoy but leave me out of it.

I take it you have not read one single article on AR's then.  Again, its not about growing the herd, its about balanced healthy herd with a solid age structure, there is a difference.

John, it's the same old story and we just keep going round and round. AR'S and food plots are for one reason only and lets just admit it right up front. AR's are for the bigger bucks with bigger antlers not a healthier deer herd. As mentioned in the past 20 years the herd has increased in leaps and bounds with out AR's. Food plots are to shoot deer period, attract them to the food, fatted them up hopefully with bigger antlers and shoot them. Not for a healthier deer herd as we have being arguing. It's just the next big think to satisfy hunters ego which we don't all agree on.

Dave