Fellow NY's - Do you favor antler restrictions??

[Doc]

Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions

[ QUOTE ]

And remember that there may be a lot of folks that don't want the AR, but they are the weekend warrior hunters

[/ QUOTE ]

You have just identified one of the concerns that I have with AR. These weekend warrior types are a necessary component of our hunting population. Whether we want to admit it or not, we are losing hunters at an alarming rate, nationally. And, NY is not immune to this trend. I believe that we are also seeing a legislative attitude shift against hunting as a result of this loss of numbers. DEC funding, or more correctly, lack of it, is one of the symptoms of this shift. Increasing successes of gun laws are another symptom. Other examples of administrative contempt for hunters are also around if you take the time to look for them. Quite frankly, it is getting harder and harder to get hunting support because we are beginning to become insignificant in numbers. Legislators are simply not concerned about us as a voting block anymore. This is not the time to be doing things that restrict hunter's opportunities at success regardless of how those hunters may define "success". Those "weekend warriors" should not be dismissed quite so cavalierly as we often see on these kinds of forums. I have no idea just what percentage of the remaining hunters these people may represent, but I suspect that it is not an insignificant number. No, they don't eat, sleep and breathe hunting as most of us do, but they do vote. And legislators respect numbers. I really don't know exactly how close a lot of these hunters are already to throwing in the towel and quitting the sport entirely. But, I do know that a hunter who is being told that most of the bucks that they see will be ineligible to harvest, combined with severe cuts in antlerless permits and over-all deer numbers, are soon going to tire of spending their free time doing something that in their minds is a hopeless effort. I know that there are places in NY that have a deer situation where the odds of even getting a doe (If any permits are actually issued in the first place), are pretty darn slim. Now, if you tell them that 80% (arbitrary number) of the bucks that they see will be illegal to harvest, it may not take a lot more to convince them that their time would be better spent bowling. And as far as bringing in a new crop of young hunters, without at least some possibility of fairly quick success, you can forget about having much success luring them into the sport and keeping their interest.

This is not a possibility that should be taken lightly. I know, that many of us more dedicated hunters often look down on the part-time hunters, but I think they just might be the backbone of our hunter ranks and proposing things that will drive them away is not really in keeping with the long-term health of hunting.

Now, what their real reaction to further restrictions might actually turn out to be is really conjecture. I think it is conjecture based on a fair level of logic, but it is still an unknown because nobody has taken the time to study it. We are all so busy trying to create a trophy state that we refuse to take the time to think about what negative impacts it might have. I have only mentioned one potential unintended consequence that jumps right off the top of my head, but I'm sure that there are other potential pitfalls that are just completely being ignored in our haste to "just do something". That really is my message. spend as much time trying to think about what could go wrong as you do dreaming about all the benefits. Also, demand that studies be done to determine what other, less desireable impacts, may result. I don't think any of us are in a position to conduct such studies, so we are forced to rely on the DEC for such activities. Perhaps a few direct questions asked of our DEC personel as to why they are not supporting AR might be in order, and perhaps a bit of pressure designed to get them to look at the subject in a bit of detail, could be useful. But I have a real hard time getting behind some major shift in management style without at least knowing that somebody has looked at the bigger picture and have determined that the move would be completely benign as it relates to the over-all future of hunting.

Doc

[VtBowhunter]

Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions

That's all well and good, but I'll take the input of diehard hunters over the weekenders every day of the week. I want to hear from those that spend the most time out scouting and preparing, not just walking in on opening day and plopping down by the old log, and the complaining because they didn't see a thing.

[LETMGROW]

Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions

[ QUOTE ]

That's all well and good, but I'll take the input of diehard hunters over the weekenders every day of the week. I want to hear from those that spend the most time out scouting and preparing, not just walking in on opening day and plopping down by the old log, and the complaining because they didn't see a thing.

[/ QUOTE ]Let's not confuse the conversation with facts. DOC is against AR'S and that is it.

[Doc]

Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions

[ QUOTE ]

That's all well and good, but I'll take the input of diehard hunters over the weekenders every day of the week. I want to hear from those that spend the most time out scouting and preparing, not just walking in on opening day and plopping down by the old log, and the complaining because they didn't see a thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I knew I made that last reply way too long and that no one would take the time to read and understand it. My point has nothing to do with who's input to take on anything. I'm simply saying that before we just rush headlong into something, let's take the time to understand all the ramifications (good and bad).

And, hopefully, we can all agree that losing any hunters whether they are dedicated, died-in-the-wool hunters or simply those who participate as time allows, is not something that benefits hunting. I also hope that my point about hunter numbers being essential to hunting's future wasn't completely lost. Also, I hope we are not going to start being willing to sacrifice hunters simply because they don't hunt as hard or as often as we do.

[ QUOTE ]

DOC is against AR'S and that is it.

[/ QUOTE ]

LETMGROW-

As I am sure you really know, that is a complete mis-statement of everything I have written on the subject. Am I against simply rolling out AR statewide with total ignorance and without even the slightest idea of what side effects it may have? ..... Absolutely. Do I think that AR belongs every where without any consideration of herd and habitat conditions? ..... Absolutely not. Do I think that AR will bring us the same trophy opportunities as what exists in Illinois? ....... Probably not. Am I against AR? .... Not enough information. I think the basic concept and goals are sound and given the right level of total understanding as to ALL the impacts, it certainly is a plan that has some real possibilities when used in the right places and under the right conditions. What I am NOT in favor of is the attitude of "the heck with what it may do to hunting's future. Let's just plow away with it anyway. Let's not take the time to understand any of the negatives, just DO IT". I am not one to just bury my head in the sand and only look at the rosey side of things. I try not to let frustration guide my actions, but rather take a measured, reasonable, and FULLY informed approach. Frankly, I am disappointed that more people can not do the same. I would have thought that someone with enough dedication to deer hunting to get completely whipped up into a frenzy over the concept of AR, would also have enough concern about the entire sport of hunting to want to at least attempt to understand how AR might impact hunting in general, or at the very least demand of those with the ability to study such things, that they do the research.

Doc

[VtBowhunter]

Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions

Doc, I did get all your points, and I did read it all, lol.

You're right about almost everything, IMO, but how do you know that the state would just do this without studying it first..........sounds like they are even if not everyone hears about what's going on.

[LETMGROW]

Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions

Doc. Let me say this. First of all I don't want to argue with anyone on this subject. I live in an area where we have some good neighbors who practice QDM without legislation. We have seen great benefits from this practice. It seems only reasonable if QDM or AR'S work in one area it should work in another. If in fact you have a low buck count in your area it's probabably because hunters are shooting yearling bucks to the point of extinction! Give these deer a chance to grow, eliminate doe competition, and any area could produce better quality deer herds. Getting buck to doe ratios correct is the key to healthy deer herds.

Give the QDMA a call and request information from them. They will be happy to oblige you and they will answer questions you may have.

I have seen and read the studies and proposals for some central NY areas and don't agree with all their ideas either.

PS. I started hunting deer in 1960. Have seen many changes in the sport. Some good, some bad! I spent many seasons seeing only a track of a deer and considered it a good season. I am pleased the hunting is so much better now. I give our DEC. much credit for this.

[jgbennett6]

Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions

The only drawback i could see from AR's in MY area would be for teh young hunters, Personally i would not mind AR's applying to people over the age of 17, i too believe its crucial for our younger hunters to have success.

[Doc]

Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions

[ QUOTE ]

You're right about almost everything, IMO, but how do you know that the state would just do this without studying it first..........sounds like they are even if not everyone hears about what's going on.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the most part, the DEC has been pretty tight-lipped on the subject and all official comments that I have heard from the DEC are against AR at this time. In fact many of the DEC comments on AR that I have heard reflect a lot of what I have been saying here in this forum. How much study and research they have done to back up their opinions, I really can't say.

I understand that the test areas where AR was experimented with this year were the result of a private group of hunters going over the head of the DEC and was handled via legislators instead. That really doesn't give me any warm, fuzzy feelings either, but that's a different subject.

But, in answer to your question, at the current time, I don't believe that the DEC would roll out AR across the state without some preliminary studies first (which I hope they are engaged in already). My only cause for concern is the amount of pressure being put on them by hunter groups and individuals to simply, arbitrarily roll out this idea statewide. And understanding the politics of their position, there is always the possibility that they could be pushed into such an action prematurely and ill-prepared with the appropriate background and research. I hope this doesn't happen, but I can certainly see it as a possibility.

Doc

[Swamphunter]

Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

You're right about almost everything, IMO, but how do you know that the state would just do this without studying it first..........sounds like they are even if not everyone hears about what's going on.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the most part, the DEC has been pretty tight-lipped on the subject and all official comments that I have heard from the DEC are against AR at this time. In fact many of the DEC comments on AR that I have heard reflect a lot of what I have been saying here in this forum. How much study and research they have done to back up their opinions, I really can't say.

I understand that the test areas where AR was experimented with this year were the result of a private group of hunters going over the head of the DEC and was handled via legislators instead. That really doesn't give me any warm, fuzzy feelings either, but that's a different subject.

But, in answer to your question, at the current time, I don't believe that the DEC would roll out AR across the state without some preliminary studies first (which I hope they are engaged in already). My only cause for concern is the amount of pressure being put on them by hunter groups and individuals to simply, arbitrarily roll out this idea statewide. And understanding the politics of their position, there is always the possibility that they could be pushed into such an action prematurely and ill-prepared with the appropriate background and research. I hope this doesn't happen, but I can certainly see it as a possibility.

Doc

[/ QUOTE ]

I think even without the legislation making AR a statewide issue, over the next couple of years we will be able to determine what the intentions are of the state in regards to this depending as to whether or not we see more AR zones popping up here and there. I don't think they would make it a blanket issue across the state for at least a couple of years. I hope they will wait to see the results of the few zones that are already doing this before determining it to be a good idea for the whole state. Lets face it, like GW said (I believe), some of NY state does not have as high of a deer population/ per sq mile as others. It would make it dang near impossible to take a deer with AR in effect not due to the bucks being smaller, but due to quite simply, the lack of deer.

[LETMGROW]

Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions

You know Swamphunter, the fact some areas lack high deer densitys is the best argument possible to institute AR's. Letting some of the younger deer live a little longer can only increase the population. If there is a population problem it is probably because hunters have shot every deer they have deemed legal. This is a strong argument to enact AR's and QDM. Thank you for pointing this out!

[Born2Hunt]

Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions

Great point ol' timer

[LETMGROW]

Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions

Thank You

[QDMAworks4me]

Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions

[ QUOTE ]

You know Swamphunter, the fact some areas lack high deer densitys is the best argument possible to institute AR's. Letting some of the younger deer live a little longer can only increase the population. If there is a population problem it is probably because hunters have shot every deer they have deemed legal. This is a strong argument to enact AR's and QDM. Thank you for pointing this out!

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100% LETMGROW

[Doc]

Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions

[ QUOTE ]

You know Swamphunter, the fact some areas lack high deer densitys is the best argument possible to institute AR's. Letting some of the younger deer live a little longer can only increase the population.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, restrictions on bucks has very little to do with deer population expansion or depletion. In actual fact, if the deer population is depleted the real solution is to back off on permits (which in some of these WMUs they are correctly doing). Now, the combination of backing off on deer permits and implementing AR at the same time is basically telling some hunters that they might as well take a year or two off from hunting because we are not going to let you shoot anything. What new kinds of recreation do you suppose those hunters will come up with while they are waiting. Probably something that has nothing to do with hunting, I'll bet. Will they come back once they have quit? ..... I doubt it.

Doc

[NYBUCK]

Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions

Doc you yelled at me for making blanket statements before . LOL J/K. But I for one and I know many others would take the risk of giving up getting a deer for a year or two to bring the herd in balance. And by balance I mean a realistic buck to doe ratio. And by implementing AR's in the areas that can handle that, you are going to do that. I would think most hunters, who are exactly that, are not going to be against a healthier herd. They would definately be back. You might loose some of the slobs, but that is not a bad thing. And I don't disagree that teh issuing of permits has to be looked at closer also to each specific area.

[LETMGROW]

Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions

[ QUOTE ]

Doc you yelled at me for making blanket statements before . LOL J/K. But I for one and I know many others would take the risk of giving up getting a deer for a year or two to bring the herd in balance. And by balance I mean a realistic buck to doe ratio. And by implementing AR's in the areas that can handle that, you are going to do that. I would think most hunters, who are exactly that, are not going to be against a healthier herd. They would definately be back. You might loose some of the slobs, but that is not a bad thing. And I don't disagree that teh issuing of permits has to be looked at closer also to each specific area.

[/ QUOTE ]Another good point. By letting the buck population increase you can let the doe population increase and still have the buck to doe ratio stay in check. Simple isn't it? Each year as you have more bucks you will have more does.

[QDMAworks4me]

Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Doc you yelled at me for making blanket statements before . LOL J/K. But I for one and I know many others would take the risk of giving up getting a deer for a year or two to bring the herd in balance. And by balance I mean a realistic buck to doe ratio. And by implementing AR's in the areas that can handle that, you are going to do that. I would think most hunters, who are exactly that, are not going to be against a healthier herd. They would definately be back. You might loose some of the slobs, but that is not a bad thing. And I don't disagree that teh issuing of permits has to be looked at closer also to each specific area.

[/ QUOTE ]Another good point. By letting the buck population increase you can let the doe population increase and still have the buck to doe ratio stay in check. Simple isn't it? Each year as you have more bucks you will have more does.

[/ QUOTE ]

I personaly think these are good points and I agree. Since the superbowl is coming up this weekend I have fotball on the brain and it made me think about something. If a football fan loves a team and they have a few bad years most people do not abandon their team. Yes you have some people that do stop watching them and you are going to have that. But most people understand that there are what many people reffer to as rebuilding years and come back to their team. I think that is what NY is in need of for our deer population and AR's IMO are a good way to insure this happens. IMO you are going to lose just as many deer hunters in those areas with a low population if nothing is done, but if we do something to change the future we may be able to bring those people back to the sport and maybe even bring more people into the sport.

[jgbennett6]

Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions

Well said let em grow..... Doc

If there are NO deer in the first place, what are they gonna do to keep the hunters hunting. let them decimate the herd even more?

[Doc]

Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions

[ QUOTE ]

Doc

If there are NO deer in the first place, what are they gonna do to keep the hunters hunting. let them decimate the herd even more?

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact is that deer population levels are determined by doe populations, not anything you do with the buck take. I assume that we all agree on that ... right? So AR or no AR, you are not going to "decimate the herd even more". It is NOT the number of bucks that determine the growth or shrinkage of the deer herd. So, let's not get hung up on the possibility that AR will assist in the comeback of herds that have been over-harvested. On the other hand, in areas of over-harvest, the result is usually a severe cut or complete shut-down of antlerless permits. So, until the herd resizes to the point where does can be harvested again, the only legal opportunity for hunter success lies with the bucks. Now, chances are pretty good that an area that has a severely reduced deer herd due to over-harvesting likely will have a very tiny number of mature deer, which means that with the combination of no permits and AR, hunters in those areas will have ZERO harvest opportunities ..... ZERO! Why would anyone go out deer hunting if there were virtually no legal opportunities to score?

Now the big question. What percentage of hunters, who may be on the fence already, would actually quit the sport completely? Yes, I understand that we all know a lot of people that would ride out these 2 or three years or more and would come back into the sport without missing a beat. I say that there are also a lot who would not. I have no clue what the numbers would be, and neither does anyone here, but I do know that with some of the percentages of decline in hunters that I have seen published, we sure can't afford to lose very many more. That's a point that I think many are ignoring or down-playing, but I am saying that that trend is very dangerous for the well-being of hunting, long and short term. It is NOT a point that should be disregarded as many have. I think the DEC understands this point very clearly and that is why they are not putting any of their support into AR. I believe there is a strong correlation between success and participation. And when we do something that destroys the possibilities of success, even in the short term, we are also destroying the participation.

Now, in areas where the deer population is still flourishing, and permits are still readily available, if AR was to be tried, I don't believe it would have that kind of negative impact because hunters would still have the does to harvest and their season wouldn't be starting off with a complete lack of harvest opportunities. If AR is desired, that is the kind of situation where and when it should be implemented, not when the herd is flat on its back. That is why I say that statewide rollout without any regard to deer conditions in the various areas could be a dangerous thing. It scares the heck out of me to see so many people pushing for something without first trying to understand the potential unintended consequences that might be involved. We are in such a panic to pursue this supposed "cure-all" that we are unwilling to call for a study that would answer all the questions first. That's not the way I generally approach things and I guess it's showing through in my responses here.

Doc

[VtBowhunter]

Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions

And the only way to balance the buck to doe ratio so you can hunt the does more is to input a system the protects bucks at a younger age so they can reach maturity for breeding purposes and better chance of survival, i.e. AR's.

Doc, I appreciate your arguements, but everyone of them comes right back around to the need for something such as AR's to be in place or at least given a chance. Hunters won't give up hunting if they think there's even a chance that they'll be hunting bigger bucks in the future.

[Swamphunter]

Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions

[ QUOTE ]

Hunters won't give up hunting if they think there's even a chance that they'll be hunting bigger bucks in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this statement also. I do however feel that for low population areas, it will suck for a few years and a lot of people would go without getting a deer, but it seems there would be a happy medium to resolve this issue other than leaping entirely in to AR's statewide. maybe a gradual transition so people can continue to hunt successfully maybe by starting off instead of 3 points on one side, start with maybe forkhorns, and then increase to 3 per side. I don't know, just throwing that out there.

[VtBowhunter]

Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions

Ken, that's how we started here, and so far it's been going very well. Folks are letting the spikes walk and shooting bigger bucks.....in some cases 8 and 10 points, when the hunter would have taken a spike they saw first but couldn't.

[LETMGROW]

Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions

Kill off all the bucks and it won't have any affect on deer numbers? What, or who will breed all the does?

Doc, Honestly, Have you ever attended a QDMA seminar?

[jgbennett6]

Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions

Doc,

I understand what you are saying but sometimes it doesn;t make sense. OK... more does less bucks equals more bucks having ot bread too many does... getting to worn and not making it through the winter. in my area i see roughly 15-20 does a day and roughly 2 bucks a week......... i feel in areas like this the does need thinning and the bucks need to be given a brea.....in other areas, the herds need a break in general, best basic way to do this. ... AR's

[Doc]

Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions

[ QUOTE ]

Kill off all the bucks and it won't have any affect on deer numbers? What, or who will breed all the does?

Doc, Honestly, Have you ever attended a QDMA seminar?

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, nobody is saying anything about "killing off ALL the bucks". We don't do that now do we? Of course not. That is just silly. In areas where there are no AR and also no permits being issued, are you telling me that ALL the bucks are going to be killed? I think you know better than that.

Also, if you have any knowledge about deer herd dynamics when it comes to harvests and populations, you would understand that it is the under-harvest or over-harvest of does that determine the population...not the buck harvest. That is a whole lot more basic and time-tested than any of the QDM principles and a whole lot more important in terms of rebuilding herds in areas that need it.

Now, for those of you that think that hunters will come flocking back once they have left the activity, I might suggest that you are basing that opinion on your own reactions and those other dedicated hunters that you know and associate with. Obviously there are many who quit and never return as we can see by the size of the annual decline. But, what is the true dedication of the majority of hunters? What I have noticed is that the bulk of the hunting population shows up on opening day of gun season, and many of them do not return for the rest of the season. Their reasons may vary all over the place, but I would say that generally that is all the time that their life's priorities will allow. We all talk about how hard it is to get youths into hunting because of all the competing activities available to them and the massive demands on their time. What we don't seem to recognize quite as quickly is that adults are undergoing the same competitions for time and recreational activities. Hunters that are under these kinds of time constraints are people that could very easily be lost permanently, especially if they believed that they would have to go even one season without any possibilty of seing a legal deer. How many of these people are there, or what percent of the total hunting population do they represent? I haven't a clue and I don't think that anybody else here does either. My thought based solely on the reduced participation after opening day is that it is a lot larger than we might suspect, and growing every year. I also believe that once these people are frustrated out of the sport, there are plenty of other, more popular activities for them to take up, so I wouldn't be expecting them back under any circumstances. Our problem is that we are all fairly enthusiastic about our hunting and we talk to others here that are pretty much the same way and it is hard for us to relate to the attitudes of the weekend or part-time hunter. And yet their numbers within our ranks are just as critical as anyone elses in terms of presenting a viable mpolitical block. I think it's kind of important to break out of our tunnel-vision and understand that our sport is under attack by society and general apathy and that for many, it would not take a whole lot to eliminate them from our ranks. I think it's also important to understand the impacts of our declining numbers and begin to think of ways that will stem that decline, not expedite it. It is certainly not something to simply shrug off and hope that it will go away. It has to become an important part of our decision-making processes when we begin to advocate dramatic changes in game management practices. And basically, that is all I'm saying is that we should not be advocating changes of this nature until we completely understand ALL of the implications, both positive and negative. To me that seems reasonable. And, by the way, the positive and negative implications are not something that we will ever effectively hash out on an internet forum. It is going to first take pressure from us, on the DEC to perform the required studies in preparation for the implementation of AR in what ever way turns out to be appropriate. That is the right way to go about any change in management style. You don't implement and then sit back and see what the results are. You make at least an attempt at predicting the outcomes first. Perhaps that is why the DEC is dragging its feet on this issue. I just might be that they are interested in doing it right.

Doc