RE: NYC Hunting Alliance Movement - NYCHAM
 

Not your intention -- Are you kidding me? You called me a liar!

Steve, I don't have a problem discussing any conservation issue with anybody, but you have besmirched my character and intimated that you have knowledge of what motivates me and a large number of my friends. Steve, you don't know anything about me and miraculously after thirty years you know even less about deer. Your statements reek of ignorance and are at best, inflammatory garbage. Do the sport a favor and stay out of the woods!

RE: NYC Hunting Alliance Movement - NYCHAM
 

I am sorry that you think I am calling you a liar directly. I would also recommend that you not engage in debates on forums such as this if you are typically so sensitive. My feeling on all this is that the QDMA and anyone who supports it is not exactly telling the truth or the whole story behind why they want such practices adopted. The QDMA is clearly a self-serving organization of dedicated trophy deer hunters that wants everyone to believe that their methodology is what is best for a deer herd. I strongly disagree with what they have to say and the way the try to present it. I have nothing against people who want to shoot trophies only or want to practice such management practices on their own land. They have every right to do that. They however DON'T have the right to think that an entire state also needs to adopt these methods. This is not right, and I will strongly fight against it if it is proposed statewide in NYS.

RE: NYC Hunting Alliance Movement - NYCHAM
 

Do you know anyone from the QDMA?[/align][/align]Are you a biologist?[/align][/align]Do you know anything about the QDMA?[/align][/align]You seem to do a lot of talking but you don't back anything with facts.[/align][/align]They do have the right to influence people into believing that smart science should govern deer management. Every one of the founders of QDMA are noted wildlife biologists. They are men of science and are dedicated to the outdoors and conservation. They don't make decisions on 30 years of feelings in the outdoors. They make policy based on decades of scientific facts and conclusions, and in case you haven't noticed Steve, the DEC obviously agrees with their management methodology.[/align][/align]You can fight as long as you want as hard as you want, but this country's laws are based on the best interests of it's inhabitants and those conclusions many times arechiseled outby a directcorrolation to science.[/align][/align]Its time Steve, its time to do yourself a favor. For Christmas or your birthday (whichever comes first) buy yourself a one year membership to the QDMA. I guarantee that after one year you will have learned so much you'll want to sign up again.[/align][/align]PS - I get a little testy when someone who hasn't got an ounce of proof behind his position calls me a liar.I get a little annoyed when someone talks and all that comes out is insulting bulls--t rhetoric! However, being the sensitive soul that I am let me end by saying --- Kiss my arse![/align]

RE: NYC Hunting Alliance Movement - NYCHAM
 

Someone's panties are in a bunch over voodoo science and deer farming, which is what QDMA is in my opinion.

RE: NYC Hunting Alliance Movement - NYCHAM
 

Is that opinion based on some expertise or a scientific background?

RE: NYC Hunting Alliance Movement - NYCHAM
 

And its not "science" because someone says so - no matter how many times they say it, how loudly they say it, or how many academics proclaiming themselves "Dr" are involved.

QDMA uses "science" to support the conclusion that is the core of their agenda.
When research is conducted to prove a position rather then impartially seeking the truth, it is not science - its a sales and marketing program.
And QDM equals big bucks - both kinds.

In parts of central NY, nearly 60% of the 1 1/2 old bucks are 3 point or better per side.
Half of these are 4/side.

Any points based AR is going to target the best of this class, while typical QDM/Trophy aggressive antlerless harvest will continue to be 1/3 button bucks. If your "Dr" scientists can attempt to spin this as a positive, we will really the motivation behind all this.

SteveBNY (not Steve863).

RE: NYC Hunting Alliance Movement - NYCHAM
 

I'm sure you mean well, but you're not going to accomplish anything if you believe this. There is a reason the legislature does not take the Conservation Council or your issues seriously.

RE: NYC Hunting Alliance Movement - NYCHAM
 

Miss. has more experience and data on statewide ARs than any other state. Here is a quote from MIss. that highlights the problem with ARs.
[quote]The perpetual protection of bucks with small
antlers could be a problem with any antler restriction,
but it is especially a problem when using more restric-
tive antler restrictions designed to extend protection to
21⁄ 2 -year bucks. For example, if an 8-point antler
restriction were applied to moderate quality habitats in
Mississippi, it would protect almost all yearling bucks
and 70 percent of 21⁄ 2 -year bucks. But it would also
protect 34 percent of bucks 41⁄ 2 -years and older (see
Figure 5). In other words, it would create a class of
always protected, small-antlered, mature bucks that
would eat valuable forage and breed while better-quality
bucks were being harvested.
The example in Figure 3 showed the problem of
perpetual protection of inferior-antlered mature bucks
can be without proper antler restriction. In our exam-
ple we started with 500 yearling bucks and followed
them to 41⁄ 2 years of age with an 8-point total antler
restriction to approximate its potential effects on buck
age structure. We used antler-growth patterns from a
high-quality soil region in Mississippi, applied a 50 per-
cent harvest rate, and added a 10 percent nonharvest
mortality rate each year. To determine how many of
these “perpetually protected” older bucks could result
under these conditions, we boosted the nonharvest mor-
tality rate to 15 percent for mature bucks and calculated
the number of 41⁄ 2 -year and older bucks with less than
eight total points would still be alive after five years.
Under these conditions about 70 of these bucks could
be roaming the woods after five years! Again, these
bucks would never be eligible for harvest but would
be eating and breeding – a management problem that
should be addressed. To evaluate the effect of the 4-
point antler restriction on antler size of older bucks,
we used six WMAs with adequate sample sizes from
31⁄ 2 -year bucks. Antler size within age classes generally
declined after the antler restriction (see Figure 6). The
decline was evident in at least one of the two age class-
es evaluated across the range of soil regions in
Mississippi. On these public management areas, gross
Boone & Crockett scores decreased 5 to 9 inches for
21⁄ 2 -year bucks and 10 to 17 inches for 31⁄ 2 -year bucks.

RE: NYC Hunting Alliance Movement - NYCHAM
 

Quote:

---

Are AR's the final answer? NO. Are they an integral part of the beginning phase of better deer conservation? ABSOLUTELY!

---

Anybody remember me saying this!

[hr]
SteveBNy
--nothing you have stated makes any logical sense.

[hr]

bsddaemon0-- please enlighten me as to your knowledge of how the legislature perceives the NYS Conservation council.

[hr]

bluebird2--not fair toput out information out of context from unnamed sources, however this information is consistent and I believe accurate. Which takes me back to the quote I made above. AR's are a beginning place for better deer management. Not the final place. Gentlemen, you need to look at the big picture in NY.

RE: NYC Hunting Alliance Movement - NYCHAM
 

Reply for when you have no other?

What here do you not understand?

The figures I gave came from a proposal drafted by a group in central NY attempting to impliment mandatory AR based on with spread in 7J, 7m and one other. The proposal was written with the help of academic "Dr's" of wildlife biology. I have a copy saved - thankfully it was killed by overwhelming resistance from the rank and file hunters.
These figures show "the big picture" has far different needs in CNY then the Catskills etc. There is no "one size fits all" answers or even needs that cover the whole state. That is logic - or should be.


What's not logical aboutrefusing to creditstudies done to prove a position rather then done impartialy to discover truth?
I've read a lot of QDMA material - I have not seen a study that was done other then to "prove" what they sought to promote.

SteveBNY