|
Frankly, I haven't tried to. That wasn't the issue, as you well know, I was responding to, simply your erroneous use of the term " NATURAL SELECTION " in your argument against AR's. Let me guess, you also carry around a pocket full of box cutters?? |
Originally Posted by crokit
(Post 3382911)
BOWTRUCK: Thank you for bringing an intelligent end to an otherwise highjacked thread:hail:
Originally Posted by bluebird2
(Post 3382918)
Obviously you didn't understand my reference to natural selection, which makes you incapable of providing a logical rebuttal. neither a non-AR harvest or an AR harvest represents what would occur with natural selection but I doubt that you have he capability to understand such a simple concept.
|
Finally you got something right!!
|
Originally Posted by crokit
(Post 3382910)
CORNELIUS: I feel for you, man. The opponents of AR in Pa. need not look any farther than BLUEBIRDS posts in this thread as to an ingredient of why AR's were not defeated, especially if others were mixing apples and oranges with such blindness. |
Maybe you can talk him into relocating to Horseheads? He could finish-out the rest of the horse.
:poke: |
DENNYF: Had to laugh, because I was thinking earlier, with BlueBird2, it's a one dog/pony show over and over etc......... Now that schools out and no homework to be done, look out!:lmao::lmao:
|
Originally Posted by SteveBNy
(Post 3382157)
Statewide habitat and herd numbers very far too widely to have a one size fits all approach.
In that article, the AR proponents are claiming 67% of the NYS hunters favor AR. If thats the case, who is it shooting all the 1 1/2 old bucks every year? That other 33% must be some darn great hunters. Steve I'd be willing to bet that of the 67% in favor, many may feel that way the first few days of season, but so many hunters have a need to fill a tag- whether due to egos, economics, etc.-as the season winds down, that crotch horn starts to look pretty good. JMHO. I have to agree with Cornelius regarding use of further herd reduction[ I'm not saying it is or isn't happening now down there ] along with AR could have a detrimental effect. I like the way NYS manages our deer herd, and have no complaints, but, I still think AR's on state lands, maybe the designated PRIMITIVE lands would work. |
Btw, howd that attitude work for you and buddies over on Griz garys board? Seems he finally got tired of of the b.s. and put some of the biggest whiners in their place. I guess some never learn. Napolean complex would be the sheer volume of posts of repetitious, look at me - I'm right and if you dont agree you are a fool (or liar or ?), that you, and a couple others infect threw out the NE Forum. Compare the volume of these posts to the handfull of mine pointing it out and tell me who has the complex. You have more posts directly calling people liars or worse, then I do in any Pa thread - and I have never resorted to using that term in any thread here. Apparently to you, consideration is something meaning you talk and everyone else listens. |
Crokit - back to the topic.
If the 67% really believed in AR, then they should be able to support it voluntarily during the whole season - therefore letting far more 1 1/2 bucks live. The fact they don't, to me says either the number is skewed or their commitment levels says it is not really that important to them. And if they where really serious about protecting 1 1/2's, they would learn to judge age based on factors other then points - extremely unreliable here in the central NY Finger Lakes region. A study of 7h, 7j and one other 7M (?) - a very large area with high deer numbers - a few years, showed nearly 60% of the 1 1/2's where 6 pt or better. The very best of the 1 1/2 would be the target of a 3 pt/side restriction. My biggest reason for being anti AR, is that I have never seen anything showing that it results in a significant number of 4 1/2 yo and up bucks being taken. This is the age of true maturity for deer. AR proponents repeatedly claim their motivation is to allow more bucks to mature - not to improve trophy quality. If it cannot be shown that a significant number make it to true maturity, then AR fails as to its claim. That leaves the only real reason to be wanting the bigger racks that 2 1/2 and 3 1/2 year old immature bucks may offer. If AR proponents would start admitting this as their motivation - to make it easier to shoot immature deer with bigger racks by limiting the choice of other huntiners, I would at least respect them. Steve |
This is from the DEC Report,
8 m 16 to 14 years of age in 2008. Comment: The Department received several comments regarding the February 2009 survey that was conducted in the 8 Wildlife Management Units prior to formally proposing expansion of the antler restriction area. Several hunters who support mandatory antler restrictions commented that the DEC guidelines requiring 67% support with no more than 20% strong opposition prior to proposing regulations for antler restrictions is unfair and a simple majority approach should be used. Additionally, these writers suggested that DEC is requiring significant effort from antler restriction proponents to pursue implementation. In contrast, several hunters who oppose mandatory antler restrictions thought the survey results were biased because DEC withheld information about the pilot program from survey participants. Further, these writers indicated that survey results unfairly favored antler restriction supporters because respondents who indicated “moderate opposition” were not included in DEC guidelines for evaluating hunter sentiment. Other writers thought all hunters should have been surveyed for a more accurate assessment. Still other writers commented that reliance on opinion surveys rather than biological data is inappropriate. Response: Because antler restrictions are not necessary for proper biological management of New York’s deer herd but rather reflect social values and desires among hunters, the Department has asked proponents to demonstrate that substantial grassroots interest exists among hunters in an area prior to the Department conducting a rigorous scientific assessment of hunter opinion. Additionally, because mandatory antler restrictions would represent a major change to the hunting tradition in New York, the Department believes it is appropriate that the potential program change be supported by a supermajority of affected hunters and not strongly opposed by more than 1/5th of hunters. Information about the existing antler restriction program was not provided to survey recipients in order to avoid biasing respondents. The survey was conducted in a scientifically sound manner using a random sample of hunters that hunt the 8 WMUs under consideration. Support and opposition levels for some units and confidence intervals for all units “bracketed” the guidelines established by the Department. This means that the data could be interpreted to either support moving forward with a formal rulemaking proposal for antler restrictions or to support taking no action. Given the equivocal results, the Department opted to move to the formal rulemaking process to use the 45-day public comment period as an opportunity to further clarify the attitudes of deer hunters and other stakeholders towards antler restrictions in this area. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:54 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.