Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Deer Hunting Trying to Legislate Antler Restrictions into NY

The finger lakes region is darn good hunting. I hunted near Ithaca for several years back in the mid-late 90's. Killed a buck every year on the first day. No monsters but five 8 points and a big 6 ain't bad. Last time we went my buddy and I each had an 8 point and a doe in the back of the truck and were on our way home by 9:00 am on opening day.

It has improved the deer herd in East Texas. All the meat hunters were killing anything that walked. Lot better antlers now.

But they all argue that its antlers are the only thing... never mind how many more deer are there, and how much healthier they are..... AND you can still kill a deer every year, at least one, and usually MUCH easier, IE have more chances...

But some must like to hunt all season just HOPING to get a single chance at anything legal.

Can't say "they" aren't as stubborn as I am though.

And it could well be that NY is already absolutely perfect on deer management and it took TX since the 70s at least, onward to around 2003 or 2004 or so to finally find something that was the best of all worlds.

New York is already requiring antler restrictions with the three inch spike minimum. Why don't you bitch that you can't kill a two inch spike?

My problem with a lot of so called trophy hunters is basically reading between the lines they advocate buying some acreage maybe doing some property improvement dump a few thousand lbs of corn out to concentrate the deer and manipulate their travel patterns. Then once they are concentrated let's shoot a bunch of the does and so called management bucks to satisfying their desire to shoot some deer but at the same time denigrate anybody else that shoots a 1 1/2 or 2 1/2 y.o. buck I.e. not a management buck then when they collect a larger buck hang it on the wall and tell everybody they are a trophy hunter. Meanwhile the guy 3 miles down the road that's not willing to spend the money on corn is wondering where all the deer have gone. I'm sorry that's just pretty much dove shooting over a baited field.

Corn? And the word trophy hunter?

Heck if you think you can bait a mature buck in with much of anything other than a hot doe, well you need to research a bit.

Its way more intensive/expensive than a few bags of corn...

Unless its a drought year, natural food sources win out every last time over supplemented...

I don't mind so much that people hunt that way, after all they are just deer. I hunt preserve birds on occasion and its sort of a set up situation. It's all fine as long its legal. I just sort of get tired of the attitude and vocalization of oh I'm a trophy hunter and anybody that shoots anything less than a 140 " 5 y/o buck is hurting the herd.

You don't need to bait bucks, if you have the doe, the bucks will be there.

Not difficult to understand.

And I still say south Texas wouldn't have NEAR the population of deer if people weren't feeding them.

Hate that Gov't is getting involved here.

I want to see healthy and bigger deer in our state. Better educational programs and responsible hunters would have the best results on managing a mature healthy population.

First its your Deer - Next its your Healthcare

Not just South Texas either. Texas as a whole IMHO.

Of course for the life of me I can't seem to get more does no matter what I do. But bucks.... I've usually got up to almost 20 hanging around the pasture during the summer....mostly not due to protein but the summer food plots that they graze on and live in.

Thats a generalization. First I tend to not score bucks, harvested or on the hoof. Though I tossed a tape on the largest I've ever shot a few years ago. Just for giggles. And it was larger than I thought.

But hurting the herd is shooting only the best in their breeding prime, while not maintaining the over all health. IE take enough females as needed. And take out the ones that appear to not have the best genetics. Body size, and antler size.

Anyone that says only shoot old bucks with a biggest score is nuts and not after the overall well being of the herd. They are simply horn hunters so to speak, what you call trophy hunters. And they might even qualify as harvesters since we are supposed to be killers actually. LOL.

I"m not and never will be a biologist. But I had the pleasure of guiding 3 months a year around Rocksprings TX and on a decently large place and was able to see how deer progress, does and bucks, and which ones typically breed, etc... so there is a LOT to "managing" IMHO.

Scott, I think... , just wants it all left alone, shoot whatever whenever, and I don't mean that in a bad way, just today the 4 point might trip his trigger, tommorrow a doe, and he might let the 10 walk, or it might be the other way around. T Zone too(I can't ever recall the right name there).

And there is really nothing at all wrong with it. Not what I want to do as I've said.

But then there are so many opinions out there, the bottom line to anything for me, if you aren't hurting the population then its not bad. If you can help the population its even better, again IMHO.

What I find funny though, is that I"ll take the first X catfish for the pan, but am selective about deer. Could care less about shooting a turkey ever again, they are boring to me. Love shooting pigs. Ain't excited about varmints.
Can't figure out why they let us feed deer, but not doves or anything migratory. But if you plant a crop its ok if it falls over. But don't feed out of a bag.

Why is it ok to plant a food plot for deer, but not put out a feeder?

Would any even believe we have out supplemental feed, that they use when they need it but not all the time... and that those places are NEVER hunted....just for the good of the herd.
Is it unfair to hunt a natural orchard or pin oak bottom? Its feed. Maybe not a big deal unless you were to go in and fertilize some of the plants, prune them for new and healthy growth etc...
How about my planting honeysuckle all over a couple acre patch, tossing wild grapes out all over to get more of them going and so on?

I"d almost think it would be all illegal to feed, or not. But then how else would you catch a fish ever?

Why do I like archery so much, but Scott, I believe, hates it.

Hmm, maybe i drank whatever Gus drinks tonight. Does anyone really know????

Whats called pure trophy hunters, especially those that go to ANY means... I despise. The ones that don't use the meat, won't shoot a cull or a doe, and then take pictures of the kill and plaster it all over the net to brag.

Read most of this thread, my comments are that antler point restrictions, according to every biologist I've talked with say the same thing, they don't work long-term. In the short term you can save an age class of bucks, but all you do is shift harvest/kill "up" one age class.

IMO, the huge dead elephant in the room is that these types of ideas should NOT be done at a legislative level. Whoever the arsehole is that took this to the legislature should be run out of town on a rail.

There is reason why we pay biologists, and NOT legislators, to manage game.

Whether or not you agree with APR's, you should oppose this bill strictly on that. The correct way to go about these type of changes is with your Game and Fish/DWR, not the legislature. This should be vetted with the hunting public, not left up to a legislature that probably doesn't have but a couple that even hunt, let alone know whats best for hunters or wildlife. How many of your legislators know jack chit about wildlife biology? How many have degrees in wildlife biology? How many buy a hunting or fishing license each year? Yet, you want these type of people to write and pass statute that deals with the States wildlife resources? I don't.

I will just tell you that having dealt with these issues, its best to NOT let the legislature get involved. Its much easier to change regulation back and forth, than something that is in statute.

I second this strongly - The same group of legislators that passed the NY Safe Act, are now attempting to control deer quality... go figure!

Yes. But a few can't seem to understand this. APR's are telling me and you how and what we can shoot.

Whether or not your "culling" or shooting the oldest deer, you're managing. Not letting Mother Nature run the course.

People can tell you what they want. They're not feeding deer for the betterment of the herd. They're feeding deer so there is more deer, so in turn they can shoot more deer.

Please clear these two items for the forum. Thomas O'Mara who introduced the AR Bill, according to the original post is from upstate NY which strongly opposed the safe act.

I also found where he is on record pledging to repeal the safe act. Which will be found here. He appears at Senate district 58. He is also a Republican, and a quick look into the safe act indicates as a group they strongly opposed the safe act.

http://scopeny.org/candidates-pledging-to-repeal-ny-safe-act/

Implying that Mr. O'Mara supports the Safe Act is obviously an injustice to his record of support of the 2A.

The Bill was introduced on March 16 of this year. What other legislators have signed on their support and what was their position on the safe act?

Addition: My error, the twitter post was March 16. The bill may have been introduced at an earlier date.

Addition 2: Thomas O'Mara

2016 National Rifle Association - Candidate Positions on Gun Rights 100%
2014 New York Shooters Committee on Political Education - Positions on Gun Rights: State Senate Republicans 91%
2014 New York Shooters Committee on Political Education - Positions on Gun Rights 100%
2012 National Rifle Association - Candidate Positions on Gun Rights 79%
2010 National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund - Positions on Gun Rights A
2008 National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund - Positions on Gun Rights A
2008 New Yorkers Against Gun Violence - Gun Control Score F
2006 National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund - Lifetime Score A
2006 New York State Rifle and Pistol Association - Positions on Gun Rights B+

Public Statements
Key Votes

For clarification, Tom O'mara, who proposed this antler restriction bill in the NY Senate, was against the Safe Act. I met with him in his office during one of the protests in Albany. He is a nice guy and has been about as good as one could hope for in a representative from NY. But he stepped in it on this one.

When AJG spoke about the legislature above, I believe he was referring to it generally and not to Mr. O'Mara specifically.

Like previously stated, The DEC went around and around on this issue for two years before deciding not to expand AR's to any new WMU's. It seemed the issue was settled. Their decision to promote the voluntary non harvest of yearling bucks was , I thought, a good compromise. But evidently the QDM folks won't be deterred. Now this bill has appeared out of the blue and it is obvious that some person or group got Mr. O'Mara's ear. Politics at its finest.

Perhaps, but his his comment that those who favored the safe act are also those who favor AR's included O'Mara by not excluding him.

Which is why I asked for the legislators who support AR's and if there is any indication they are in bed with those who support the Safe Act.

It is one thing to disagree with the QDM group and another to imply they are anti-gun.

You would actually be fine here since we don't have APR. We have a spread restriction.

BTW I agree that biologists, not legislators should make the rules...

Semantics. Not really much different.

But those aren't set by a government, they're set by your club. You can go somewhere else if you don't want to follow them. Correct?