I used to feel the same way about Missouri until I went on-line to look at our surrounding states' fees for licenses, and then I decided to pay what Missouri charges and shut up! Almost every state bordering Missouri charges more for hunting and fishing licenses! You should check into it, I bet you'd be surprised!! We're actually lucky!!

If you can see the rack well enough to count points and determine if there is say a 1" brow tine present then you certainly can tell if it is a rack of trophy proportion or not. Especially if you have only a quick look at the rack, it's much easier to judge if it is 120 or higher than to determine if a scruff potential fork horn has that little brow tine or not. Besides, if it's marginal then you shouldn't be shooting. That's the entire point. We're trying to get to the point where we are shooting only the mature trophy sized animals not trying to separate out one scruff buck from another slightly less scruffy buck and if somebody can't recognize a trophy when they see it then maybe they shouldn't be hunting. I can see realaxing the rule a bit for beginners but not for veteran hunters.

.

Studies by a statebiologist reported for CNY Whitetails showed that 60% or better of the 1 1/2 yo bucks are 6 pt or better. Of course a higher % of 2 1/2.

Points based AR would target the best of the young bucks - sounds like a great management tool???

AR is about attempted trophy management - NOTHING MORE. If succesful, then try to find an affordable place to hunt in 10 years. Private land will be tied up by outfitters and HIGH dollar leases. Public land will be so pressured, your new"trophies" will be harder to find then now.

Want bigger bucks? Support TRUE voluntary QDM through education and example. Don't shoot a YOUNG 1 1/2to 3 1/2 oldbuck - let them reach true maturity!No one pushing for mandatory AR gets even a little bit of respect for their opinion from me unless they only shoot OLDER MATURE bucks. Shoot that 100 class 2 1/2 and I just smile and shake my head.

Steve

EXACTLY! That's why I say let's not settle for a partial solution and that's all the 3 point or even 4 point rule is. 120" inch or higher is where we all want to go so let's do it.

I wish here in Kansas they would restrict non residents to just shooting does. J/K of course.

I think some people are making some serious assumptions here about what other hunters are looking for in their hunt. I hunt for a rack and to a second degree for the meat. (venison is not as good as other game meat I've had and I use it on a limited basis) On my property I don't shoot deer under approx 100" range just because I don't want to, seems a waste to me. But if my neighbor wants to shoot it that's his business and I don't worry about it. I believe there are plenty of guys looking for just the meat and toss the antlers in a pile out back, I've seen it. Not every hunter has horn lust. That's okay by me. What you have to decide is what the goal isfor the Game Commission for your state. Is it numbers control?Age diversity? Buck/doe ratio (which as far as Game Comm is concerned is usually a factor of number control, not rut intensity) Since they are funded by hunter's voluntary payment of taxes leveed on their lic and hunting related items hunters should (and usually do) have a say in how the herd is managed. What the hunters should remember is they should be curteous as possible to the views of all hunters, not just trophy deer hunters but meat hunters, small game hunters, turkey hunters, etc. Don't always think of yourself and try to find a compromise that satisfies the most people without impacting the minority.

If they just want the meat then they can shoot a doe and help the buck to doe ratio. There is no point in killing a small buck or even a 100"if you just want the meat and/or don't give a rat's butt about the antlers. That truly is selfish. "Let em go so they can grow" right?

imo, abarofsoap has got the right idea. He just doesn't take it far enough to accomplish the goal.

im not the one that passes laws

Did I misunderstand something? I thought you were advocating antler restrictions for the entire state of NY.

As someone who deals with reg. writing I can tell you that you're missing an important fact. In order for a law to be effective, it HAS to be enforcable. You are not actually expecting DNR personnel to be going around measuring and scoring racks to determine if they are legal do you? Points can be counted quickly and effectively by anyone. Scoring is too subjective to be an enforcement tool. No reg. writer in their right mind would ever think of putting a benchmark into law that two or three different "experts" couldn't even agree upon exactly. In the real world the only solid benchmark to get at the same idea is point counts. It may not be ideal, but it is workable.