Which would you prefer??

[Dave]

One buck per season. To answer the question.

[Grizz1219]

Don't you think trying to "micro manage" the state by zones is asking for "issues" either intentionally illegally shooting something not fitting the rules of that area or by accident??? Better to be state wide and work with doe permits to adjust by zone I would think...

[Nomad]

Dave I hunt 8h as well, and I have been stopped at least 5 times by the dec in years past . I saw them drive past 2x's this year.

We worked with them when we had a poacher problem as well, I now have his card in my wallet and cell # in mine.

[dave6x6]

Larry, John Stansfield is a great guy. We let him trap the property and try to get him out to hunt once or twice a yr. if he can squeeze a couple hrs in between shifts. He's always available to give advice over the phone or shoot out whenever we have a problem. You hunt close to me so you know there is always some funny business..

[Skillet]

One buck rule would be nice. Said it before, I'll say it again, repercussions be damned: I will shoot what I need to in order to fill the freezer, regardless of who says I can't because of rack size, period.

[dave6x6]

One buck rule would be nice. Said it before, I'll say it again, repercussions be damned: I will shoot what I need to in order to fill the freezer, regardless of who says I can't because of rack size, period.

Do you really think the one buck rule is necessary or would do anything in the areas that you and i hunt? Taking one less deer out of a heard that is already overpopulated and as stated before, only 5% of hunters take two deer. So seems insignificant to even try that here..

[Dave]

Why do we have such a problem with the gov't restricting our rights to own guns? But no problem with them restricting what we can hunt. The more they restrict what we can hunt the more they can restrict what guns we can buy. Just MHO

[Dave]

Do you really think the one buck rule is necessary or would do anything in the areas that you and i hunt? Taking one less deer out of a heard that is already overpopulated and as stated before, only 5% of hunters take two deer. So seems insignificant to even try that here..

Maybe that 5% isn't exactly the right %. What about the guys who shoot more than one and don't report their take. Either legally or illegally. Just MHO

[Doc]

Don't you think trying to "micro manage" the state by zones is asking for "issues" either intentionally illegally shooting something not fitting the rules of that area or by accident??? Better to be state wide and work with doe permits to adjust by zone I would think...

Here's the way I look at it. We can manage by "one size fits all"from the adirondacks to the capital area to the farmlands of western NY and know that we are screwing up in some of those places. Or we can make attempts to tailor management to the situations, herds, and habitats as they exist, as locally as possible, and have a far better chance of getting it right. Obviously, there is an element of practicality that has to apply, but we already have regions and WMUs layed out with unique doe harvesting boundaries, and nobody seems to have a lot of problems with that. I don't see why buck management schemes would be any different.

I can only say one thing ..... I would hate to be a hunter saddled with ARs in a WMU that had their permits cut off or cut back severely. As the example I gave in my last reply, that would amount to telling hunters "Thanks for spending your cash on a license now go out there and have a nice walk. Probably no need to carry your gun. That to me is a local condition that would make AR basically mean, "no hunting". There are some situations where some of these kinds of heavy restrictions are just unreasonable.

[Skillet]

Do you really think the one buck rule is necessary or would do anything in the areas that you and i hunt? Taking one less deer out of a heard that is already overpopulated and as stated before, only 5% of hunters take two deer. So seems insignificant to even try that here..

Good point Dave. Maybe it would shut some people up though. Of course, then they would want to put AR's on your 1 buck. Why don't we make it so you can't shoot any buck unless it's zebra striped, has a unicorn horn, and wears pink bunny slippers. But wait, how long should the horn be? 28"? 32"? Size 8 or 10 slippers? Vertical or horizontal stripes? I'm sick of this crap.

[bubba]

I agree. I think 1 buck rule will allow the surviving smaller 4's and 6's to become 8's and 10's.

that would be ok if they werent all shot as button bucks and dmp's put on them. I prefer a one buck rule and if you shoot a button buck it counts as the one buck. After all a buck is a buck. If you shoot your buck , then shoot a button and put a dmp on it, you have broken the one buck rule, and should be ticketed. I understand it can be tough to sort them out, but I bet as many buttons get shot and a dmp put on them as spikes and 4's get shot.

[Doc]

Regarding the "one buck rule", I have to believe that this is just another "feel good" regulation that would really have no impact on buck populations. I think it is just another one of these things that sounds good for a few seconds, but really serves only as window dressing. Seriously, how many people do you actually know that harvest more than one buck? I won't say it doesn't happen, but when you actually thinkabout it, you will have a heck of a hard time thinking of anyone who does that on any kind of regular basis. I suspect that in areas where someone does take two, the buck population is probably such that it can stand a hunter or two that doubles up on their buck harvest. Like I say, I believe it is just another feel-good proposal that makes us feel like we have done something when in reality it would not be worth the cost of passing the legislation.

The only good thing that such a law might help would be the fact that some guys would be a bit more picky about the quality of the buck that they take because they would understand that there is no second chance for a bigger one.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

It might increase the license sales though, Doc. Think of all the wives and girlfriends and lids that would be buying them th give Dad the tag. Lol. I know its an stretch of an example but it will happen. It happens now. That is why I don't buy the 5% stat about two bucks taken. I wonder if they could ever study the start of the license sales drop and compare it to the end of multiple people on doe tags. We used to do it. Grandpa got his license and a friend of his. It was four people on a n application and dad and I would go onto the lottery with them. We were the only two that hunted.

I am not sure how any of these plans could be managed. Statewide is not the answer to any of them. Heck even in some of the WMUs there are a wide variety of habitat and herd size variances

[WNYBuckHunter]

Maybe that 5% isn't exactly the right %. What about the guys who shoot more than one and don't report their take. Either legally or illegally. Just MHO

Right, plus the 5% figure is state wide, and you cant compare the fingerlakes and WNY region to the rest of the state. I know plenty of guys that shoot 2 bucks per year.

[Grizz1219]

Here's the way I look at it. We can manage by "one size fits all"from the adirondacks to the capital area to the farmlands of western NY and know that we are screwing up in some of those places. Or we can make attempts to tailor management to the situations, herds, and habitats as they exist, as locally as possible, and have a far better chance of getting it right. Obviously, there is an element of practicality that has to apply, but we already have regions and WMUs layed out with unique doe harvesting boundaries, and nobody seems to have a lot of problems with that. I don't see why buck management schemes would be any different.

I can only say one thing ..... I would hate to be a hunter saddled with ARs in a WMU that had their permits cut off or cut back severely. As the example I gave in my last reply, that would amount to telling hunters "Thanks for spending your cash on a license now go out there and have a nice walk. Probably no need to carry your gun. That to me is a local condition that would make AR basically mean, "no hunting". There are some situations where some of these kinds of heavy restrictions are just unreasonable.

Don't you think by micro managing though you are inviting problems with either people making "mistakes" by shooting something in one zone that is only ok in another?? Just asking... I was trying to figure out a "simple" plan that might work easier and make less people mad..

[nyantler]

I know plenty that take 2 bucks a year as well

[Doc]

Don't you think by micro managing though you are inviting problems with either people making "mistakes" by shooting something in one zone that is only ok in another?? Just asking... I was trying to figure out a "simple" plan that might work easier and make less people mad..

Don't we have an antlerless permit system that is based exactly on the same thing? ..... and for the same reasons.

[Doc]

Right, plus the 5% figure is state wide, and you cant compare the fingerlakes and WNY region to the rest of the state. I know plenty of guys that shoot 2 bucks per year.

Somebody want to catch me up and tell me where this 5% figure came from? I missed it. Is that some kind of DEC stat?

[nyantler]

I like the idea of having to fill your doe tags first before you can get a buck tag... it will give the meat hunters a chance to get some meat so that they won't have a reason not to pass on a small buck... although I'm sure we'll hear some new reasons for why they needed to kill a small buck after filling their does tags... it will also create situation where guys will have to let a buck walk if he hasn't filled his tags... once you do it a few times it really isn't all that hard.. they may even see some nice bucks while waiting to fill their doe tags.. giving them insentive to pass on smaller bucks in hopes of killing one of the nicer bucks that they've seen.

[Grizz1219]

Don't we have an antlerless permit system that is based exactly on the same thing? ..... and for the same reasons.

If people have to cheat with doe permits, they are just sad... But I see your point...

[13BVET]

I like the idea of having to fill your doe tags first before you can get a buck tag... it will give the meat hunters a chance to get some meat so that they won't have a reason not to pass on a small buck... although I'm sure we'll hear some new reasons for why they needed to kill a small buck after filling their does tags... it will also create situation where guys will have to let a buck walk if he hasn't filled his tags... once you do it a few times it really isn't all that hard.. they may even see some nice bucks while waiting to fill their doe tags.. giving them insentive to pass on smaller bucks in hopes of killing one of the nicer bucks that they've seen.

The problem is, how do you have the "earn a buck" program in areas where there are no doe permits? This could very well put excessive pressure on areas where doe permits are available, rhetorically speaking.

[Larry]

why would you start a earn a buck program in this state when most states that had them are getting rid of them.

as for wmu's with no dmp's you would have to take up bow hunting

[nyantler]

The problem is, how do you have the "earn a buck" program in areas where there are no doe permits? This could very well put excessive pressure on areas where doe permits are available, rhetorically speaking.

you don't have earn a buck where there is no doe hunting... those are mostly low deer density areas.. and the buck age structure is usually better.. no need to do it there... which brings up another idea... how about limiting the amount of buck tags issued across each WMU?? That ought to get some heads spinnin"

[Larry]

it sure would get heads spinning but you and i both know bucks are expendble weather we like it or not.

[nyantler]

all deer are expendible... I just threw that out there for those that claim they aren't into the antler thing.. let's see how not into antlers they really are...