Killing Bucks with poor genetics

[bubba]

oh that one is easy.  Most on here are advocating shooting the younger ones.  So, if it isnt mandated by law, it will not work voluntarily.  Too many need that 40 pounds of meat to survive.  Personally, I am against it statewide, as it would be foolish.  If things are going to be statewide, make them all statewide. The NZ and SZ have diffeent rules such as opening dates, implements used etc.  There is a reason.  I find it funny that last year during season, so many were ccmplaining that the population had been all but made extinct due to dec rules, and no one was seeing deer.  Now a few months later, a plan that would strengthen the herd is met with so much opposition as there are too many deer. lol.  Kind of ironic aint it.  As I have said before too may arm chair quarterbacks. 

[WNYBuckHunter]

So how do AR's not help the buck to doe ratio oh wise one?

Shooting older bucks doesnt get rid of does, smartass.

Actually it does. If all the guys shooting spikes and four pointers shot a older buck or a doe. The amount of older bucks will never be as great as the number of yearling bucks, so therefore shooting older bucks and does does balance out the herd. I don't see where your confused.

Sorry, but just implementation of ARs does not accomplish what you are talking about. You would need to completely revamp the DMP system so that all hunters would be guaranteed a doe permit, and in some areas of the state, thats just not possible. Again, shooting older buck does not get rid of does.

So you're telling me if less bucks are shot and the same amount of does are shot then the buck to doe ratio doesn't become more balanced? It's not to hard to figure out. Do the simple math.

The AR isn't a cureall for everything, but it's a start.

I live in Greene County. Right on the Hudson River. There are way more does then bucks. For example two years ago, opening day, I saw 14 different does and fawns. No buck. Many time you can drive around and see 10-15 does and fawns. No bucks. I don't know where the rest of you live but in my neck of the woods the truth is it's pretty close to 12:1. Believe what you want to.

If x number of does are being shot currently, and you propose no additional does being shot, how is that going to lower the number of does in your area? You are talking about less bucks being taken, but are all of those additional deer still within the area's carrying capacity? What I am trying to explain is that AR will not "fix" your area's herd without other steps being taken, and it certainly does not bring a buck to doe ratio back into line.

[G-Man]

exactly bubba!! its not in my backyard syndrome... personally i believe lot of nice deer are taken and have been since 1939.. dont see a biological need to have it, only a media impressed need do to to much advertising and antler craze. if you want a big buck so bad bite the bullet you know what needs to be done! do it!

[nyantler]

No ar's are not the simplist way to raise the age of bucks... no buck season only doe would be easiest!! no looking to see if it had points at all ..any thing on its head...dont shoot!!!  but then we would have a revolt in nys...lol..  Joe hit it most people would give up their first born to get a buck ..the though of not being able to shoot a buck...oh the horror!!!! course eveyone that shoots a little buck for meat would be happy still they could shoot does...wait cant they do that now? ??? :

A no buck season is also an AR...

[nyantler]

So how do AR's not help the buck to doe ratio oh wise one?

Shooting older bucks doesnt get rid of does, smartass.

Actually it does. If all the guys shooting spikes and four pointers shot a older buck or a doe. The amount of older bucks will never be as great as the number of yearling bucks, so therefore shooting older bucks and does does balance out the herd. I don't see where your confused.

Sorry, but just implementation of ARs does not accomplish what you are talking about. You would need to completely revamp the DMP system so that all hunters would be guaranteed a doe permit, and in some areas of the state, thats just not possible. Again, shooting older buck does not get rid of does.

So you're telling me if less bucks are shot and the same amount of does are shot then the buck to doe ratio doesn't become more balanced? It's not to hard to figure out. Do the simple math.

The AR isn't a cureall for everything, but it's a start.

I live in Greene County. Right on the Hudson River. There are way more does then bucks. For example two years ago, opening day, I saw 14 different does and fawns. No buck. Many time you can drive around and see 10-15 does and fawns. No bucks. I don't know where the rest of you live but in my neck of the woods the truth is it's pretty close to 12:1. Believe what you want to.

If x number of does are being shot currently, and you propose no additional does being shot, how is that going to lower the number of does in your area? You are talking about less bucks being taken, but are all of those additional deer still within the area's carrying capacity? What I am trying to explain is that AR will not "fix" your area's herd without other steps being taken, and it certainly does not bring a buck to doe ratio back into line.

Very good point... and one that the DEC has to look at very carefully when mandating any form of AR.. there is always a decline in buck kill with any AR program in the first year or two... doe kill numbers would need to rise in order to maintain some population control in a given habitat.. AR's is not the "end all be all" it is just a piece of the puzzle when it comes to good whitetail management... probably the most important part of managing deer is knowing what needs to be done in a given area and having a game plan to meet that areas needs...that is the DEC's biggest challenge

[WhitetailCrazed11]

Contrary to what most may think, i think this has been a very successful topic!

[nyantler]

count my vote for adopting Ohio's management system.

just passing bucks would IMPROVE ratio, though it wouldn't even it if no more does were shot.

I'm all for passing young ones, but don't believe anywhere in this country (outside of a fence) has 12:1 ratio's before season. Its theoretically impossible unless everyone intentionally shot all the button bucks last yr.  After opening day, well thats another story. :'(

Ohio's program works well for them.. I think it would be great here... I'm not sure NYers would really like the one buck rule or having to pay $15 for a doe permit... plus $24 for a license.. $19 for deer permit... and if you're a turkey hunter you have to by a permit for spring and fall at $24 a piece... throw in fishing and you're paying more than the super sportsman here...All that would go over like a lead balloon...

As for the before season ratio.. it is theoretically possible... because of the average ratio buck to doe fawns born(51% bucks: 49%does) if you ended the season with 12:1... you would be very close to that same number come hunting season the following year.

No its still impossible.  If you had 100 does and NO, 0, bucks left after season, next year you would have say (just for example of 1 fawn recruited per doe) 50 yearling bucks and 50 yearling does (from this yrs fawns)= a new ratio for next yr of 150 does to 50 antlered 1.5 bucks, or 3:1.  You can repeat this for 100 yrs and it won't change much, unless you discriminately kill buttons or if you have a serious fawn recruitment problem where your herd is drastically shrinking, and then you have bigger issues than buck/doe ratio.  Sure you have to account that some bucks will be hit by cars etc, but you see the point.  Sometimes observed ratios are not accurate.  Often we count fawns as 'does' in observation, and if you are not in the area the batchlor groups are, you are going to miss all the bucks, squewing your ratios.

I stand corrected...

[pawle76]

I think a hunter who pays for a tag has the right to take any deer they want as long as it's a legal, ethical kill.Doe, Spike, 4 ptr. or otherwise and anyone who thinks they have the right to preach just because someone else doesn't hunt the same way is wrong. Bottom line. I think as hunters we should respect each others differences in what deer is suitable or exceptable to take as long as it's legal.

[Larry]

What do you consider to be poor genetics? Is it rack size because if that is what you use to determine genetic quality, then there’s a good chance you are shooting good deer there are many other factors that come into play in determining rack size. I’ll give you two examples; where I hunt I have seen 1 spike in the last 7 or 8 years is it better genetics or better habitat or some other factor. I shot a 6pt 2 years ago it was 31/2 years old it dressed at 193lb is that poor genetics? The deer was healthy it just didn’t have any G1’s and if it was poor genes where did they come from the mother or the father. The bottom line is hunting is suppose to be fun. Don’t make it so much like work.

[bubba]

you guys watch way too many hunting shows. who has the actual time in a real hunting scenario to decide if the deer is of poor genetics or much of anything else? And how does one deterine this without having them penned up like they do on those shows? Go hunt have fun and stop reading so much into it.

[growalot]

Posted Today, 06:39 AM

you guys watch way too many hunting shows. who has the actual time in a real hunting scenario to decide if the deer is of poor genetics or much of anything else? And how does one deterine this without having them penned up like they do on those shows? Go hunt have fun and stop reading so much into it.

[nyantler]

Most bucks in NY don't ever reach their genetic potential, they never get old enough.. so how would you know what genetics they even have?

[Doc]

It never ceases to amaze me how many different scientific fields that hunters have become expert at. Now we are all geneticists. It's a good thing that these scientific fields are such easy things to pick up on the side, or we would never have time to pursue our main careers.