Antler Restrictions - What are your thoughts?

[YoungBucksTasteBetter]

One of the reasons many hunters do not see mature bucks is because they aren't actively hunting them... sure they would love to see one and harvest one, but most guys settle for the first buck they see, which shows up around 7 am opening day... I use to be one of those guys many years ago... I had a hard time seeing anything other than yearlings... in 1994 when I first started passing on younger deer... I saw more bucks than I ever saw before and killed my first huge buck... I believe it had everything to do with learning how to pass on younger bucks and seeking out areas that would hold bigger bucks... since then I have killed 11 bucks that score over 100 and have passed on well over 100 younger bucks that I could have killed... I don't think it really says much about how good of a hunter I am, but more about how patient I have become... and I'll grant you... it may not be for everyone, but it sure has made my hunting far more challenging and extremely enjoyable...

Ok..so this brings us back to the reason for this topic.  You CHOSE to start passing on smaller bucks based on what you wanted out of your hunting experience, starting in '94.  Good for you.

Why then are you supporting the imposition of forced, mandatory antler restrictions on those who don't want to hunt "your way" - shouldn't we all be allowed to CHOOSE the buck we want to harvest?

[SteveB]

Actually I don't believe he supports it mandatory - more nuetral I would say as it is far from the best method to get 1.5's to live another year in much of the state. My opinion only.

[Dave]

I don't believe it should be mandatory if you choose to not shoot small bucks it should be up to you not the state. My club doesn't shoot spikes or 3 pt deer and it has been that way for years and it has not improved the quality of bucks in our area one bit. In fact there have been years we haven't taken a buck at all. So in our area it doesn't work even with our self imposed AR restriction.

Dave

[nyantler]

One of the reasons many hunters do not see mature bucks is because they aren't actively hunting them... sure they would love to see one and harvest one, but most guys settle for the first buck they see, which shows up around 7 am opening day... I use to be one of those guys many years ago... I had a hard time seeing anything other than yearlings... in 1994 when I first started passing on younger deer... I saw more bucks than I ever saw before and killed my first huge buck... I believe it had everything to do with learning how to pass on younger bucks and seeking out areas that would hold bigger bucks... since then I have killed 11 bucks that score over 100 and have passed on well over 100 younger bucks that I could have killed... I don't think it really says much about how good of a hunter I am, but more about how patient I have become... and I'll grant you... it may not be for everyone, but it sure has made my hunting far more challenging and extremely enjoyable...

Ok..so this brings us back to the reason for this topic.  You CHOSE to start passing on smaller bucks based on what you wanted out of your hunting experience, starting in '94.  Good for you.

Why then are you supporting the imposition of forced, mandatory antler restrictions on those who don't want to hunt "your way" - shouldn't we all be allowed to CHOOSE the buck we want to harvest?

I don't necessarily support a state mandated AR... But I also wouldn't cry if they imposed one simply because my own standard is far more restrictive than what they are proposing.. so it really doesn't affect me...I like the idea an AR but I'm not a fan of current 3 on a side AR plan proposed by the DEC.. I am more for hunters taking their own initiative and passing on younger bucks on their own...

[Doc]

I don't necessarily support a state mandated AR... But I also wouldn't cry if they imposed one simply because my own standard is far more restrictive than what they are proposing.. so it really doesn't affect me.

This is pretty much my attitude on AR except that I do see one potential way that state-wide mandated AR could impact my hunting and the sport of hunting in general. That would be IF the imposition of AR had a significant negative impact on the decline in hunter numbers. I have no way of knowing if AR might be the final straw that drives on-the-fence hunters over the edge. Actually, I don't know anybody who can say for sure. However, put in combination with the fee increases, and a few other moves I have to wonder if we aren't simply accelerating this decline with every new restriction and hunter irritant. I don't know, but it certainly is something to think about.

[burmjohn]

I don't believe it should be mandatory if you choose to not shoot small bucks it should be up to you not the state. My club doesn't shoot spikes or 3 pt deer and it has been that way for years and it has not improved the quality of bucks in our area one bit. In fact there have been years we haven't taken a buck at all. So in our area it doesn't work even with our self imposed AR restriction.

Dave

I support it, and have seen the results, it works.

[nyantler]

I don't necessarily support a state mandated AR... But I also wouldn't cry if they imposed one simply because my own standard is far more restrictive than what they are proposing.. so it really doesn't affect me.

This is pretty much my attitude on AR except that I do see one potential way that state-wide mandated AR could impact my hunting and the sport of hunting in general. That would be IF the imposition of AR had a significant negative impact on the decline in hunter numbers. I have no way of knowing if AR might be the final straw that drives on-the-fence hunters over the edge. Actually, I don't know anybody who can say for sure. However, put in combination with the fee increases, and a few other moves I have to wonder if we aren't simply accelerating this decline with every new restriction and hunter irritant. I don't know, but it certainly is something to think about.

I'm not of the position that it would really have that much affect on hunter numbers long term... you might have those that are half hearted hunters now passing on a license the first coupe years, but I think once those hunters started seeing more mature bucks being taken by hunters over the years... hunter numbers would actually increase... I know there are those on here that talk down big antlers.. but I think the truth is that once they start seeing those mature bucks... they would be back hunting again... my worry is that the 3 on a side restriction won't be enough to see the benefit quick enough... places where antler restrictions are stricter and protect nearly all yearling bucks.. you will see the substantial benefits within 3-5 years... it is a little slower with just a 3 on a side restriction... either way it I will have little to do with my feeling about hunting... I have had little trouble finding a big buck over the years... I think when hunters experience the benefits of a good AR and have the ability to see bucks of all ages on a regular basis.. they will always impose their own restrictions to make sure they don't lose that experience.

[Meat Hunter]

I just don't understand the state mandated ar's... face it if 67% of whatever numbers want it and do it vollentarially there is/would be no need to have mandatory ar's.

G MAN, at first look, it sounds like if the majority wants to do AR then a voluntary program should have the same results.  Not so.  67.1% support MANDATORY ANTLER RESTRICTIONS of 3 points on one side in the 7 units proposed for the expansion of ARs. This is across the board rule for all except youth.  They were not asked to support a voluntary program or if they would comply with the same.  As you may be aware, the DEC ran a voluntary AR program and it was unsuccessful do to lack of compliance.

In addition 70-73% believe that if they pass on a small buck it will be killed by another hunter.  What is your incentive to pass the buck voluntarily when you believe it will just be killed by the next guy?

I know where I hunt there are at least 10 guys with in a few hundred acres hunting and I have let deer go by just to see them shot on the next property.  Lot of small properties and lots of folks hunting cause this.  That is why many areas are so effective at killing 70+ percent of yearlings.

Even if the hunters that killed a buck last year all let them go, only 14% of the buck hunters are successful.  That means that even if they passed 86% of the hunters need to pass too.

The sheer numbers of hunters tell the tail in southeaster NY.  We have the highest population densities by a magnitude of 15 to 1 in Region 1, 2 and 3 vs. the rest of the regions in the state.

An across the board program that applies to all hunter equally is the way to have a successful yearling buck protection program with antler restrictions.  This has been proven in the Mandatory AR areas of NY.  And will be proven elsewhere in NY over time.

[Meat Hunter]

Why then are you supporting the imposition of forced, mandatory antler restrictions on those who don't want to hunt "your way" - shouldn't we all be allowed to CHOOSE the buck we want to harvest?

Wildlife management is not about “choice”.  People all had the “choice” to kill what they wanted at the turn of the century and deer almost went extinct.  That is why we have very strict hunting regulations to protect the resource and to equitably distribute a scarce resource among hunters.  If we all chose to kill what we wanted there would be no deer.

We do not have the “choice” to kill a doe with a gun during gun season unless we draw a doe tag.  For that matter we cannot kill a buck with 2.5 inch antlers either.  The only reason we are having this conversation is because the law defined a legal buck as one with one three inch antler in 1911.  Had they define it as a buck with 8 total points, we would all be used to that and think nothing of not killing sub legal bucks. Just like we do not kill does when we don’t have a tag or bucks with less than 3 inch antlers.

If we had a “choice” to go kill a 2.5 or 3.5 year old buck without AR we would not need ARs.  The fact is if you take 60-80% of the bucks before they reach 1.5 years old there are very limited adults bucks to harvest.  It not rocket science it’s just math.

[Doc]

you might have those that are half hearted hunters now passing on a license the first coupe years, but I think once those hunters started seeing more mature bucks being taken by hunters over the years... hunter numbers would actually increase...

I have seen it time and time again. Once a hunter drops out, very seldom do any of them ever come back...... regardless of the reason. They find new recreations and ways to occupy their time. I have also heard people say "if they aren't serious hunters that want to hunt my way, who the heck needs them anyway?"  I guess I see things a bit differently, and I do worry about policies that might cost further decline in hunter population.

I have no crystal ball that I can use to say for sure that AR would cost any hunters, but nobody else has one that allows them to say that it won't. I do know that we have lost a lot of hunters, there are darn few new ones coming in, and that the dedication of many of our current hunters is getting weaker and weaker to the point where it would take very little for us to lose them entirely. From the level of opposition to ARs, I can probably say with some degree of certainty that we would lose some more. That may not be a reason to shoot down AR, but it certainly should be considered.

[YoungBucksTasteBetter]

If we had a “choice” to go kill a 2.5 or 3.5 year old buck without AR we would not need ARs.  The fact is if you take 60-80% of the bucks before they reach 1.5 years old there are very limited adults bucks to harvest.  It not rocket science it’s just math.

I have to bring you back to page 43 of the 2011-2015 plan.  "DEC considers the primary impacts of mandatory antler restrictions to be of a social nature for hunters and does not anticipate biological impacts for deer."

I agree with you on one point - there's no science behind AR at all.  We have one group of hunters who believe that ARs will give them the easy path to shooting a "trophy buck", and with the help of national organizations/money they are imposing those regs upon those of us who couldn't care less about how big the deer's headgear is.  In that sense, guys like yourself are taking "choice" away from those of us who don't subscribe to the trophy antler farming mentality.  If there's no biological reason for a regulation, then the DEC has no business imposing the regulation.  If you want to shoot older bucks - great, do it voluntarily, and that also means you have to make the investment necessary to grow/hold those older bucks on the properties that you hunt.  Forcing your approach to hunting (actually, it isn't hunting, it's farming) on the rest of us either via the DEC's regs or by these backdoor legislative moves isn't acceptable from my point of view.

[Meat Hunter]

... and with the help of national organizations/money they are imposing those regs upon those of us ... 

... If there's no biological reason for a regulation, then the DEC has no business imposing the regulation. 

If you want to shoot older bucks - great, do it voluntarily, and that also means you have to make the investment necessary to grow/hold those older bucks on the properties that you hunt. 

Your assertion that national organizations/money are supporting AR are 100% false.  Show me the facts? Who are you talking about and where is this money going from and to?  If you’re referring to any 501 C 3 they have to disclose all financials so this made up assertion is easy to disprove.

There are biological reasons for ARs.  The DEC has said that.  You can believe what you want but it does not change the fact that 100’s of biologists believe it is better to have a diverse age structure in the buck population.  Without human interaction there would be 12 year old+ bucks walking around.  Nature works the way it does for a reason. BTW I am sure you have seen presentations by and spoken with a DEC biologist in your area that explains the biology behind ARs.  Don’t you believe your local expert?

If you can get me the big chunk of land needed to have a successful voluntary program I am in.  But since very few hunters are multi millionaires and can afford such a piece of land, let’s do something that helps the common man hunter, an AR program that applies to all adult hunters.

I happen to be anti deer farming as well.  That is why most hunters support ARs.  All we need is age structure in our area to get larger bucks.  We do not need food plots or expensive habit programs. 

ARs are not about antlers they are about increasing the age of the buck population, providing more meat per harvest and improving the hunting experience. 

[YoungBucksTasteBetter]

I do believe my "local expert"..Jeremy Hurst is the head of the NY Deer team, and he co-authored the 14 page "A summary of New York's Pilot Antler Restriction Program".

I think they did a nice job with this program - - they surveyed the same hunters throughout the pilot program, and correlated all the data back to 2003-2004 before the ARs went in.

The data shows that the majority of bucks taken are now 2.5 years old.  It also shows that the hunters surveyed are not happy with the results, because they aren't seeing more, older bucks.  Here's the quote on page 8:  "A majority of hunters reported being dissatisfied and having unmet expectations with (1) the number of older, larger antlered bucks seen, (2) the number of antlered bucks compared to antlerless deer seen, and (3) their opportunity to shoot larger-antlered bucks"

There are other data markers in that document that show that other changes in the AR zone were also seen in the broader region as a whole, which means the AR didn't change anything in many instances.

The net of that statement is clear:  After 5 deer seasons in the pilot zone, the ARs didn't work.  The deer harvest has more 2.5 year old deer in it for sure, but that doesn't translate to more/bigger bucks walking around. 

Since the AR pilot area, and the area now being proposed for mandatory, forced ARs (covering the whole 700,000 acre Catskill Park) is predominantly public land, I believe the data in this 14 page document is sufficient justification for removing mandatory, forced ARs from the regulations, and the "choice" to take a trophy of one's own choosing returned to those of us who are only able to hunt on public land, have limited time afield, etc.

[G-Man]

The problem is this everyone thinks they will see older bigger bucks with ar's and its not true. Large private leases in the mid west do not provide big bucks for everyone that hunts there! dont believe me go shell out 3-5 grand on a hunt for a week and see what you come home with if anything. I know several people who have gone to canada for big buck and they come home with something in the 130 inch range (i can kill those in ny). The false hope that tv shows provide do not represent the actuall hunter. How many of us can take 3-5months a year and hunt everyday? Time in the woods is what you need to kill a big buck! they are a cautious secretive animal (some are nearly nocturnal)and the way most of us hunt(sitting in a stand) you will probably only have 1 or two walk by in your lifetime while you hunt weekends. Older bucks are tough to hunt and kill. The people that do it consistantly hunt many hrs during the season if not the whole season! not to mention months of scouting/using multiple trailcams/ ect year round. Tracking /still hunting are many's prefered method of hunting older mature deer.

[Doc]

Here's the quote on page 8:  "A majority of hunters reported being dissatisfied and having unmet expectations with (1) the number of older, larger antlered bucks seen, (2) the number of antlered bucks compared to antlerless deer seen, and (3) their opportunity to shoot larger-antlered bucks"

Now there is a study result that sort of confirms what I often thought might be the case. Rightly or wrongly, I believe that a lot of AR backers are under the impression that AR equates to easy harvest of plentiful trophy bucks. When that doesn't actually happen they become very dis-illusioned with the results.

Ok, this is the place where everyone starts talking about how AR has nothing to do with creating trophies, but instead is all about revising the age structure of the herd. It's a "herd health" process. That may very well be the real textbook intent, but that doesn't mean that the majority of AR supporters don't unreasonably see the whole thing as an easy way to fill NYS with those freakish animals that they see on TV. What's the result? .... unmet expectations  and dissatisfied hunters as the study suggests.

Quite likely the bulk of supporters calling for AR are these misguided individuals who are looking for AR to supply something that never was claimed that it would. So one has to wonder how many people would actually support AR if they really understood what the realistic results are likely to be. As a side thought, I have to wonder what will happen to these dis-illusioned hunters when they are stuck with their AR and the monster bucks still are not behind every tree. Perhaps even more defectors from the ranks of hunting? .....Who knows???

[nyantler]

you might have those that are half hearted hunters now passing on a license the first coupe years, but I think once those hunters started seeing more mature bucks being taken by hunters over the years... hunter numbers would actually increase...

I have seen it time and time again. Once a hunter drops out, very seldom do any of them ever come back...... regardless of the reason. They find new recreations and ways to occupy their time. I have also heard people say "if they aren't serious hunters that want to hunt my way, who the heck needs them anyway?"  I guess I see things a bit differently, and I do worry about policies that might cost further decline in hunter population.

I have no crystal ball that I can use to say for sure that AR would cost any hunters, but nobody else has one that allows them to say that it won't. I do know that we have lost a lot of hunters, there are darn few new ones coming in, and that the dedication of many of our current hunters is getting weaker and weaker to the point where it would take very little for us to lose them entirely. From the level of opposition to ARs, I can probably say with some degree of certainty that we would lose some more. That may not be a reason to shoot down AR, but it certainly should be considered.

I think the type of guys you are talking about are dropping because they aren't really as into hunting that much anyway... not because of something imposed by the DEC... It's just my opinion... but I really think that any decline in hunters has way more to do with the change in the times... numbers are declining because most children of hunters aren't hunting and there kids will probably not hunt either... it's so hard to get a teenage kid to want to do anything anymore that doesn't involve a computer or a cell phone... I think that guys like you and I, and other really dedicated hunters will always hunt... as long as we are physically able... regardless of how the DEC desides to do things... I mean I have spent a couple thousand dollars to go on a vacation that lasted only 10 days (not including money spent during the vacation)... I think $100 a year to hunt and fish... is an absolutely bargain... AR's or no AR's

[Doc]

I think the type of guys you are talking about are dropping because they aren't really as into hunting that much anyway... not because of something imposed by the DEC... It's just my opinion... but I really think that any decline in hunters has way more to do with the change in the times... numbers are declining because most children of hunters aren't hunting and there kids will probably not hunt either... it's so hard to get a teenage kid to want to do anything anymore that doesn't involve a computer or a cell phone... I think that guys like you and I, and other really dedicated hunters will always hunt... as long as we are physically able... regardless of how the DEC desides to do things... I mean I have spent a couple thousand dollars to go on a vacation that lasted only 10 days (not including money spent during the vacation)... I think $100 a year to hunt and fish... is an absolutely bargain... AR's or no AR's

I absolutely agree that the causes of hunter decline are a whole list of reasons. Hunter frustrations from rules and regs certainly does not lead the list. But that does not mean that it is not a contributer. Also, I think I did indicate that the first people out the door because of additional rules and regulations are most likely those who hunt in a rather casual fashion with a rather low level of dedication. That doesn't mean that we can afford to lose them. For one thing I doubt that anyone has a real good feel for how big a percentage of hunters are included in that description. I think we all understand how important numbers are when it comes to issues of politics and legislation. And politicians make no distinction as to how dedicated these missing hunters were. It doesn't do any of us any good to drive out any hunters whether they are serious hunters or not.

[erussell]

Not to forget to mention older bucks means harder bucks to kill. People are use to sitting in a field and shooting the first spike or 4 point that comes along. Ive read a few article about hunting clubs that went to QDM and after a few yrs people were a little fed up with it even though they were seeing big bucks on thier cameras they weren't killing any of them. It wasn't till they backed off the food plots and started hunting the thicker nasty stuff that they started bringing in the bacon so to speak, a change of tactics will have to be made. So, no the big bucks won't be behind every tree but there will be more of them and when the people who are againts AR start to kill them thier attitude will change. The only problem I see with it is where will it stop. When people have killed a bunch of 130's then they will want 160's so then will it go to 8 point only and then people will want to kill 200's so then it will go to 10 point only, though I beleive in NY if you kill something over 140 you have a freak of nature on your hands. I think AR would be good but it might open a whole nother can of worms. Feeding deer comes to mind, and in my opinion  it would take alot of the sport out of deer hunting and just make it farming and killing which if you want to do that just go on a canned hunt.

[Dave]

I don't necessarily support a state mandated AR... But I also wouldn't cry if they imposed one simply because my own standard is far more restrictive than what they are proposing.. so it really doesn't affect me.

This is pretty much my attitude on AR except that I do see one potential way that state-wide mandated AR could impact my hunting and the sport of hunting in general. That would be IF the imposition of AR had a significant negative impact on the decline in hunter numbers. I have no way of knowing if AR might be the final straw that drives on-the-fence hunters over the edge. Actually, I don't know anybody who can say for sure. However, put in combination with the fee increases, and a few other moves I have to wonder if we aren't simply accelerating this decline with every new restriction and hunter irritant. I don't know, but it certainly is something to think about.

I'm not of the position that it would really have that much affect on hunter numbers long term... you might have those that are half hearted hunters now passing on a license the first coupe years, but I think once those hunters started seeing more mature bucks being taken by hunters over the years... hunter numbers would actually increase... I know there are those on here that talk down big antlers.. but I think the truth is that once they start seeing those mature bucks... they would be back hunting again... my worry is that the 3 on a side restriction won't be enough to see the benefit quick enough... places where antler restrictions are stricter and protect nearly all yearling bucks.. you will see the substantial benefits within 3-5 years... it is a little slower with just a 3 on a side restriction... either way it I will have little to do with my feeling about hunting... I have had little trouble finding a big buck over the years... I think when hunters experience the benefits of a good AR and have the ability to see bucks of all ages on a regular basis.. they will always impose their own restrictions to make sure they don't lose that experience.

I agree with Doc I think the older hunters will drop out of hunting in bigger numbers than the DEC expected. You want them to wait 3-5 years to hunt bigger bucks, many don't care about bigger bucks, they just want to hunt and let them decide on what buck to shoot.

Another thing I was thinking about as far as AR restrictions go. What will happen to all the 1 1/2 year old bucks this year. Is it possible that the hunting public will take their anger out on the DEC and shoot the younger bucks this season because they know they will be shut out for 3-5 yrs at getting a crack at the new legal buck. If this is the case will it take more than 3-5 yrs to rebuild the herd? Just my thoughts on this matter, I am not in favor of AR, and I am getting older and now they are taking 3-5 years away from my hunting just so others can have a shot at a bigger buck. Question which tastes better a young buck or an old one?

Dave

[nyantler]

First of all the taste of meat has noting to do with AR's.. secondly, that would be is 3-5 years to see the program come to fruition, there will still be plenty of bucks out there to shoot during those years... especially if it is a 3 on a side AR... You just might have to actually hunt more than just opening day to get one...Nobody is taking away 3-5 years of anyones hunting... just managing what can be taken. And yes maybe some of the immature hunters out there may take there anger out by doing something stupid like just shooting as many young bucks as possible.. but like they say.. you can't change stupid.

[Dave]

First of all the taste of meat has noting to do with AR's.. secondly, that would be is 3-5 years to see the program come to fruition, there will still be plenty of bucks out there to shoot during those years... especially if it is a 3 on a side AR... You just might have to actually hunt more than just opening day to get one...Nobody is taking away 3-5 years of anyones hunting... just managing what can be taken. And yes maybe some of the immature hunters out there may take there anger out by doing something stupid like just shooting as many young bucks as possible.. but like they say.. you can't change stupid.

First I do hunt more than one day. I hunt bow most of the season and a lot of gun also. And you didn't answer the question which tastes better a young deer or an older one. If you hunt for trophies the meet will not be as good. May look good on the wall but doesn't do much for the palate . I should have said taking 3-5 years of me making the decision on what type of buck to shoot. It's funny how angry you get when we think the gov't will take away our guns, but you have no problem with them taking away our hunting decisions as what to shoot or not shoot. If they restrict any more of our hunting privileges we will have no need for guns because there will be nothing to hunt. Just think how much the hunter success rate will drop.

Dave

[Dave]

What's to stop the DEC from changing it to 4 pts on one side. This only benefits those hunters who want bigger racks period at the expense of all the hunters who just want a deer. A friend of mine told me many years ago "you can't eat antlers". I think most hunters, hunt for meat (food) not antlers. Give them an inch and they will take a mile. This AR situation will make it even harder for hunters to get access to private hunting land. Who wants to wait 3-5 yrs for the new legal buck and have some hunter stroll in and kill a nice big buck you have been waiting for, for years? So lets see what the AR will give you. Less access to private land,and many hunters frustrated giving up on hunting, nothing to hunt. Who benefits ? The trophy hunter!!!!!

Dave

[burmjohn]

I'm not a trophy hunter,  and I'm benefiting from the AR's both in bigger deer and all around more fun.

[YoungBucksTasteBetter]

The young ones taste better -  ;D  - you can prove it to yourself.  36 hours marinated in wine/butter, just enough time on good hot grill to bring the meat to a hot pink center, and you won't even need a knife to cut the pieces.  By comparison, some of the older ones I've shot (yep, it's a dirty little secret in the trophy hunting community, but there were bucks in the AR zone with more than 3 points on one side before the ARs went in), no matter how you cook them you have to saw through the meat even when using a sharp blade.  I'll take that tender button buck over the old, stinking, no fat left on him because he's been running the does around, "mature buck" any day.  There's a reason the cattle industry puts the young ones on the supermarket shelf and puts the old ones into the category "cutters and canners".  If you define "quality deer" by the culinary value of the meat you put on your table, then it's the young 'uns you want.  It's also why you should write a letter to the DEC telling them to do away with the forced, mandatory AR's because you want the choice to harvest deer that are worthy of your dinner table, not just some trophy hunter's wall.

[Doc]

You just might have to actually hunt more than just opening day to get one...

That is exactly what my point was. We are trying to legislate dedication to hunting. It can't be done and shouldn't be done. And if we continue to try by thinking up whole shopping lists of new restrictions and new methods of throwing new frustrations into the requirements of hunting, we should not be too surprised if we are not also adding to the problem of disappearing hunters.