---

ORIGINAL: BuckAlley

I'm not surprised at this in the least. From the beginning 3yrs ago, the DEC said this was a test pilot. I give the DEC credit for handling it the way they are. I mean they could just push it upon the whole state as PA did. So least they're taking their time, studying the situation, and surveying hunters on it all. Plus they've set a minimum limit in order to go through with any expansion of it. Thats not shoving it down our throats at least!.
I have mixed feelings on A.R.'s. I'd like to see a healthier herd, better ratios, and a few more larger bucks.But A.R.'s don't protect the yearling bucks with nice potential. I looked overthe racks on mycamp wall from yrs of hunting. 90% were yearling bucks. All but 2couldn't have been harvested under presentAR restrictions. 3 pts on at least 1 side doesn't protect all the yearlings.

I agree buckalley, the correct way would be to use points AND width of rack, i.e. outside the ears spread typically indicates a 3.5 yr or older animal. I say typically of course because there are exceptions.Body size and shape, length of legs, thick neck belly etc., is also a good indicator and it should all be considered before pulling the trigger, but let's face it the average Joe isn't educated enough to look at all those factors. (not yet anyway!) Keep in mind though thaty as we err on the side of caution, that will also let more deer go to live another day, andhopefully another year. There is also the "educated buck" factor as when you let them go they become a little smarter and better at evading hunters.


It only protectsthe spikes, 3pts, and 4 pts. I believea minimum spread should be included, beyond the ears is a easy onethat'd cover alot more yearling deer.
I also feel their is alot more interest in A.R's, that some here realize. The 2 thingsmany, many hunters want to see in the woods is either numbers or large bucks. After all its what most every hunter dreams of is harvesting a large rack record book buck someday.If they can't do that they like to see alot of deer.
Another thought on this if you've ever read any of the Anti's claims on deer hunting. One of the main things they say against us is we proclaim to be sportsmankilling animals for the sake of a healthier herd. But yetwe target any deer, and kill mostly small bucks. Is that the kind of image we want to be used against us?

I don't care what they say really, but it is wise of course to walk the walk, as it were. No matter what we do they will find fault with it.

---

---

It wouldn't bother me one bit if this was done on a state-wide basis

---

---

ORIGINAL: Ed McDonald

It wouldn't bother me one bit if this was done on a state-wide basis . I have no problem with shooting does .

I don't particularly care for the "if it's brown , it's down " attitude !

---

---

ORIGINAL: SteveBNy

.

No problem with it even though the article clearly states "the DEC does not see a critical biological need or compelling management advantage to mandate such restrictions.". ??????

I am amazed at those who want to impliment a program statewide that has no sound need or advantage.
All in the hope NYS become a midwest hunting mecca?
Which Charlie pointed out tends NOT to be a good thing for the local resident hunters.

Steve

---

---

ORIGINAL: DeerandbearhoG

What about the kid or newbie that does want to shoot a small buck, why should your current standards, dictate what others coming up behind you, shoot? Telling other hunters its wrong to shoot small bucks ,cause the average buck might get a few more inches on their racks, 10 years down the line, if we all shoot bigger ones, is like telling a guy its wrong to marry an ugly woman, because if we all marry hot women, well all be better looking in the future. Total elitist attitude.

---