I always sigh a big sigh - when I hear people say The states in the East should be able to match the potential of states Like Kansas, Wyoming, etc.

The fact remains that in NY, (and PA, WV, CT, Etc). we have too many hunters that enjoy a long season. To keep our hunters happy - we manage for quantity. Like it or not - as hunter numbers dwindle - ARs and other alternante managment methods WILL be discussed and implemented in NY.

When states with large hunter participation try to reduce the herd - LOOK HOW UNHAPPY the average hunter is. Fact is you cannot have 1,000,000 hunters chasing 2,000,000 deer and keep everyone happy.

ARs can work at the local level. In Practice - states like KS, IL, etc are already practicing ARs - because they do not harvest 75% of their bucks every year!!!!

Lastly - as far as immature bucks doing the breeding - Studies show - that even in a very unbalanced herd - most does are still bred by the Dominant, local buck(s) as determined by the social structuring in August/Sept. Do some of the immature deer do the breeding? YES - but it is not Nature's way. The only way immature will ever do most of the breeding - is if there are no dominant, older bucks around.

FH

That is right....and even a yearling can be a "dominant buck" depending on the local deer population.

AR here in NY won't decrease your herd numbers.

Here in NY we don't have too many hunters. We may have too many hunters that hunt public land or even the land that is private and over hunted but we don't have too many. Look at the land that is not hunted because of.....the excuses..the terrain is too difficult, there aren't many deer there so I'm not going to waste my time...etc ...
The total numbers of gun hunters here in NY is what 630,000? for how much land? How many are successful? Remember, some aren't successful because they smell like a breakfast as they walk through the woods. This is an entirely differrent topic.

FH, managing for quanity....??? If you look at the CTF recommendations here in NY the TF's have recommended that the DEC allow a larger amount of deer be harvested than historically has happened. That means that the CTF and the people associated with them want a smaller deer here. The DEC has been trying to reduce the deer herd. There is plenty of evidence to show such as well.

AR is on its way.

Welcome Summerflower, you make some very interesting points about AR, and our current herd. I too agree w/ you, and farmhunter on dominant bucks doing most of the breeding. I've read this, and learned this 20yrs ago in college studying deer mgmt. I've also witnessed it in the woods in a form of watching larger bucks running off yearlings. 3 seasons ago, I watched a nice 8pt running off 3 yearlings while all chased a lone hot doe. It was awesome to watch. I know thats just one small incident in our NY woods of course. But our yrly harvest numbers of constant more buck harvests, statements read in some of the info others have posted here. We all know most of the bucks harvested are yearlings in this state. Its always been that way, least in my lifetime. Its sickening to think only 25% of our male deer make it to 2.5 yr olds, and only 1% make it to 5.5yr olds. Sure we have large numbers of deer in this state, or did have anyways. But the bulk of the population being only 1.5yrs old isn't balanced or healthy. As far as genetics I agree its obvious a deer's genes are what they are regardless of age. But we don't know any deer's true makeup until they reach older age. Just becasue that buck was a 6pt at 1.5 doesn't mean he's going to be a 12pt at 2.5 or older. He may never do anything more then a average 8pt. But I don't believe genetics is the main concern at this point in time with our herd. Its getting it more balanced, and a wider age class of deer. Not just mostly 1.5 yr olds. If AR does work to balance that out, perhaps further QDM efforts can be made down the road, or at least allow private owners more opportunity to practice wider QDM methods. QDM efforts in this state are just too difficult for too many of us alone, unless your fortunate enough to own several hundred to 1,000 acres of private land. Most of us don't.
Phade my apologies for quoting you as writing private clubs. I don't like to post others actual quotes. Just my personal perference. I was referring to your indication you felt AR has its place in Private management. I was making reference to "Private" there. No harm, no foul.

It just seems to me something more needs to be done with our deer herd. Our regulations of past have constantly taught us its ok to shoot more yearling bucks, and less doe. Its obviously led to unbalanced numbers. The past several yrs have ever so slowly been turning that around, and I'm sure many of us would agree too many female deer is a problem for numerous reasons. It certainly not normal with any species to be made up of mostly younger age classes. Image our own human race if it was mostly made up of children, and teenagers. I know thats a crazy reference, but just think about it for a minute!!!!!!!!!!

I agree with this statement whole heartedly. I think that here in NY and throughout the entire NE for that matter, most hunters are just so used to hunting in areas where the buck pop. is decimated every season and the sex ratios are so skewed that they believe that this is just how a "natural" deer herd operates. Those high fenced ranches that you see on TV from Texas have a far more natural deer herd than we do in most of NY! QDM and AR are two of the most overused and misunderstood concepts in deer management today. They no doubt are the two that will cause heated arguments between hunters the quickest. Far too many people hear these two words and instantly think of nothing but trophy bucks. NY will never be a IL, IA, or KS...but if AR could add a year or two to a some of the bucks in the herd...what's so bad about that? I can't see a single negative aspect about having more older age class bucks running around. Honestly, I don't think that implementing AR will work on an equal basis throughout the state, afterall, the Adirondacks are a far different place that it is here in western NY and people will break the game laws with or without restrictions in place. But, in heavily hunted areas of the state like much of WNY and the rest of the southern zone, I don't think that AR can mess the herd composition up anymore than it is already.

This reference isn't so crazy...in fact, I think that it hits the nail right on the head.

These are just my opinions and I know that they won't be shared by everyone on the board....but I think that we sould give AR a honest chance.

BuckAlley wrote: What evidence do you have to claim that the deer in the present herd are not healthy? Are there any studies whatsoever that indicate genetic problems on any scale? Are there any studies that indicate our deer are abnormally small or weak for their age?

Then you agree that it makes no difference at what age a buck passes on those genes. Think about this...Many studies have shown that over 90% (some say over 94%) of even yearling spike bucks will be in the Pope & Young category if they are allowed to live to be 4 1/2 years old. Therefore if those same spike bucks were able to mate they would be passing on the genes of Pope & Young class deer. The idea that older deer pass on better genese is a fallacy.

Some studies even indicate that in herds where there are too many older buck it is MORE likely that a buck will mate with a doe that is actually one of his great grand doe so to speak. This situation increases the likelyhood of genetic problems. The best situation for genetic diversity is to take out a buck soon after he has passed on his genes. 1 or 2 old timers in small herd doing all the mating is a bad thing not a good thing!

Don't fall for it, I don't have a problem with AR if it was for the right reason but in PA, it was not. It was started from pressure from insurance, lumber and paper companies, Christmas tree and vegetable growers etc., all private land; the PGC has no control there. Most of the hunters hunt on public land which had no problem in the first place; now they are shot out and the private land still has the same problems.

Must a better way!

Its not that the deer aren't healthy - Individually, they may well be "healthy as a horse" - Its that the herd may not be healthy.

What part didn't you understand?

FH

True -

But a heathly herd is not about genetic diversity - its more centered around buck:doe ratios and age structure.

If we were looking at changing the makeup of a particular herd - you would be correct about about the quickest way to encourage change. But -by taking deer right after they breed - There is no dominance established - and the local herd remains in a state of flux until a few deer live through a season or two.

farm hunter wrote: If the individuals in a group are "healthy as a horse" then logic demands that the group is "healthy as a horse" as well. What part of that logic don't you understand?

No it is not! This is exactly what I said earlier. Many advocates of AR define a healthy herd in terms that have nothing to do with healthy and strong deer. They define it in terms that have everything to do whith improving their chances of killing a nice buck and then they say "see our herd isn't healthy".

I clearly understand farm hunter, we will have a healthy herd when you can go out into the woods and in 5 or 10 minutes kill a trophy. I understand that big bucks is what its all about.

If you guys that want the average age of buck to go up, let me offer a compromise. How about a system more like Ohio. A state without AR but 4th in the nation for P&Y taken. They allow up to 5 or 6 (not sure) doe to be taken every year but only 1 buck. Here in NY you can take 2 buck. A few years ago when you could put an antlerless permit on a buck you could take more than 2 buck. Limiting the number of buck taken reagardless of antler size would increase the average age of the buck in the woods over what we have now but de-emphasises the trophy management mentality and elimintate the genetic concerns that are associated with AR. It also lets the young fellow who has never taken a buck of any kind take the 4 point if he likes. We could have the DEC issue buck tags just like DMP's are now. When the buck population is low (i.e. high doe:buck ratio) then cut back on buck tags. This of course implies that on a given year you might not be able to get a buck tag but you could get a preference for the following year. What do you think?