I'm restricted now, because I'm seeing NO RACKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So you are saying that the biologicaldata that Lindsay presents has no relevance to the discussion of antler restrictions in New York?

The relevance to our situation is two fold. The AR backers claim biological reasons, and better quality hunting. In reality, they clearly mean trophy hunting. The've either had the chance to grow as hunter over their years, or they are the new-age trophy hunter. Both are doing this push for personal, and very greedy purposes.

The important question remains to be seen is that who can honestly limit what antoher person calls a trophy. The AR pushers always say, shoot a doe then. Well to be honest, that is BS. Nobody really challenges the idea of harvesting does anymore as much as it once was.

However, I am not above someone who only gets out a time or two, and only has the opportunity to shoot a small buck. They'll be hella proud of it. And that is before any biological considerations.If you are comfortable with stating that you should be able to force another hunter into not shootingwhat is a trophy to him, then you can push the biological data. Prior to that, the relevancedoes nottread water.High-grading (hygration)the middle class bucks really sucks the wad.

AR is a practical implement under QDM. It works under a QDM practice to perfection if there is enough acreage. On a large scale, as soon as the bucks become legal, they are dead under flat AR state mandates. There's no 3.5 or 4.5 yr old requirement, or even a plan to harvest poor quality bucks in AR.

Under AR a spike is the exact same as a forkhorn. Technically, there is no difference because they cannot be harvested. So if you state a spike shouldnt be shot, then neither should a forkhorn. It is simply a delay of the inevitable, and a continuation for deer to pass on inferior genes. That article clearly states therelevance of shooting spikes when relating to a QDM standard. Under AR, there is no standard other than 3 points per side.

Not to mention, the AR factor on the elderly, children, and new hunters. Charles A. has stated he is against AR in D&DH a couple years back because of this.

#1. The deal with NY allowing 17 yr old and under being exempt from the AR is hogwash. Why, because it is borderline illegal, and it'll be challenged pretty quickly in the courts I believe.

#2. I'd be a pissed off man if pops (hypocthetical)is on his last season and is forced to pass a spike or forkhorn because of this lame law. Denying him or her that chance is merely a slap in the face. He was an integral part of the wildlife management for years, and now his season goes by empty because of this law. That is a sad way to go out I think.

#3. New, older hunters get the tube of vaseline with this law. They are not young enough to be exempt, and therefore they have to pass on small bucks (which are much more likely to happen by before an mature one). How many times do you think it'll take before the person says screw this, and gives up the sport? There's an element of challenge in hunting, but I can't say the future would be enticed by having to wait for a mature buck (even if the AR pushers say it'll make mature bucks more common-which is another debate).

On a side note, IF I was ever to go with an AR proposal. It would not be this one. Rather it would be the TX version. Two bucks per season limit. One must have an inside spread of 13 inches (basically beyond the ears), and the other must have at least one unbranched antler (one spike). Everything else in between, is a "do not shoot buck."

Phade,

So, obviously your answer is NO.

You do not believe the biologically data is relevant. Thank you for making that clear.

Until the state and the sportsmen and women can decide on the who can shoot what deal, NOPE. After if they mandate it, yes. It'll be sickening to see the first part happen.

JCC-

That's my whole point. That article is not relevant to spike harvest regarding AR. You even stated it yourself. It is related to growing high-scoring bucks/QDM.

How can it be releveant to AR? The AR pusher's official reasoning is to balance the herd, etc., not grow higher scoring bucks. Or is it?...you just proved my whole point.They claim bio reasoning, but it is thewolf in sheep's clothing.

Phade,
Please reread my statement, your are infering facts that do not exist.

I stated that the authors "opinions" pertained to his interpretations as they relate to QDM.

It is thebiologic information that he utilized to form those opinionsthat I stateis relevant to the discussion of AR.

To simplify it for you...
His opinions on QDM don't matter, it is the biological data that he haspresented that is relevant to AR.

So you are stating that you don't think AR propentshave anyinterest in balancing the herd?

JC - I think Phades answer is that thebio data is but one very small part of the consideration of mandatory AR (especially based on point restrictions only)for NY.
The only deer protected and allowed to grow older underpoint based AR are spikes and forks who are either late born 1 1/2 or bad genetics. No protection at all for baskets and other YOUNG deer. I have not read everything on real QDM programs, but I find it hard to believe any there are anythat promote the taking of basket 8 points, and any other YOUNG deer( those under 4 1/2).
Perhaps you have other data thatdemonstrateshow targeting and increasing the pressure on the 60% or higher of 1 1/2 NY deer with 6 pts or better will be benefit anything? Or that (example) 90 class 2 1/2 are "trophies"?i
What about the rest of his arguement (ones I strongly agree with) against points based AR for NY? Again - WHAT is a TROPHY, and who gets to decide?
Steve

Steve

Steve has it nailed. I'm just strongly against AR mandated state-wide.

I relate it to a company who pollutes a river. What prevents that company from polluting? Is it biological consequences? Partly. But first and foremost it'sthe laws that prevents/controls it.

From an AR perspective, we need to answer the important social question of who can shoot what (law/regulation). Then, and only then, can we argue biology. It's pointless to do otherwise beforehand on an official capacity.