If you're not in favor of a year round season (due to risk of reduced herd numbers), would you support shortened (or loss of one or two) seasons, to allow deer numbers to grow? In the end, as long as the herd numbers are managed properly, what's the difference?
How can you say that a shortened or cancelled deer season in an under-populated area is "radical"? Same Q for over-populated states. Each area of each state has an ideal carrying capacity. Period. Why not let them (resource commissions) do their jobs?
When I first started deer hunting in Iowa, we had to apply as residents for our tag. There was a limited quota and it was really a thrill to get an "anysex" tag, because it meant you actually had a decent chace at getting a shot at a deer. "Antlered Only" was a tough tag to fill. We couldnt wait for the envelope to arrive and tear it open to see what tag we got. An "Anysex" tag meant an excited call to all of your buddies. Now, as a landowner, I can kill three bucks each year and a nearly unlimited number of does. I have seen both ends of the spectrum. I would gladly give up a tag or hunt a shortened season to allow deer numbers to rebound from a very low population. But I have not been spoiled my whole life with an over abundance of deer to hunt. And I have killed enough to not still be greedy. Makes a difference.
Personal "greed" on my part, but i do not want a shorter season. I remember GA having 5 tags, 3 does and 2 bucks. Everyday was buck days, but we only got a few doe days. Then deer were everywhere and the tags went to 2 bucks tags (one has at least 4 pts on one side) and 10 does. Now I do not see to many deer but the tags numbers are not going down. I hunt an archery only county and get an extra 2 weeks (jan 31st is close of season), and I still want more days in the filed. I just love hunting man, and I would hate to "loose" time afield.
I want a herd in balance with the habitat/human population. I dont want a year round season, and i dont want the number so low they'd have to close the season. Proper manangement takes out the right number of deer, while allowing sufficient hunting opportunity
In a perect world, Ryan.....you're right. But, we "play" with seasons/etc... in NC seemingly every year. We've added days to ML season (this year). We've added 2 additional weeks of rifle season (this year). Those same 2 weeks are open for bowhunters. We added an urban season about 3 yrs ago. We removed the daily bag limit (this year). So, we're already hunting (in some form) for about 5mos.. What if that doesn't achieve the end goal? Would you (if you lived here) rather see rifle season extended (come in, earlier)....or, see bow season lengthened (even more)?
LOST REVENUE.Stop hunting,at least in my state,there is NO MONEY.All money comes from the sale of tags and license's and donations. It is on the table right now in Ky to have an open season in our state parks to create revenue because they are broke.(special permit) Can't forget the money when we are discussing these matters. Remember the insurance companies would love almost complete annihilation. And no,I am not in favor of either extreme.Anytime hunting is introduced into the equation,the numbers benefit.
Honestly, I'd rather have too many deer than not enough. I'd rather be in the woods than sitting on the couch watching football.
I have been fortunate to see an overpopulation and a decimated herd while hunting. 15 years ago it was common to see upwards of 100 deer a day during rifle season drives...now these same areas you are lucky to see more than 2 or 3. Here in PA we definitely needed the herd reduced but after so many years, the doe population has been destroyed in some areas. I saw 3 different doe in archery season from my one property, and I saw probably close to 20 different bucks on this property....sounds good but those bucks need doe to keep growing and replenishing the herd. The problem is that I hunt another property 10 minutes away where we spotted upwards of 100 doe on the 180 acre farm this year in one night. There are so many variables in such a small area that there is no way to manage the herd that is perfect for all areas. I personally would love to see the archery season being cut by a week but starting 2 weeks later than it is now, get rid of the early doe season,cut a week off rifle season and cut a week off late archery...I love hunting but we have so many hunters spending so much time in the woods that it destroys age structure and overall herd dynamics. Now the real kicker is that hunters from other parts of the state are seeing much different deer herds that my statements sound crazy....there is no way to make everybody happy without micromanagement and that takes some serious coin that the Game Commission doesnt have.
I have been fortunate to see an overpopulation and a decimated herd while hunting. 15 years ago it was common to see upwards of 100 deer a day during rifle season drives...now these same areas you are lucky to see more than 2 or 3. Here in PA we definitely needed the herd reduced but after so many years, the doe population has been destroyed in some areas. I saw 3 different doe in archery season from my one property, and I saw probably close to 20 different bucks on this property....sounds good but those bucks need doe to keep growing and replenishing the herd. The problem is that I hunt another property 10 minutes away where we spotted upwards of 100 doe on the 180 acre farm this year in one night. There are so many variables in such a small area that there is no way to manage the herd that is perfect for all areas. I personally would love to see the archery season being cut by a week but starting 2 weeks later than it is now, get rid of the early doe season,cut a week off rifle season and cut a week off late archery...I love hunting but we have so many hunters spending so much time in the woods that it destroys age structure and overall herd dynamics. Now the real kicker is that hunters from other parts of the state are seeing much different deer herds that my statements sound crazy....there is no way to make everybody happy without micromanagement and that takes some serious coin that the Game Commission doesnt have.
Because they don't know how in NY. We don't have a choice here. They are currently trying to decimate the "overpopulated " herd (that doesn't exist). We'll continue to try to balance our little corner in the NY hunting world the best we can.
Yes... I think hunters know their individual area better than game commisions. I find it hard (impossible really) to have a blanket statewide management plan. It's just that much different from county to county in NY. Hell it's that much different from road to road. How does some dude sitting in an office know more about my land and herd than a person that practically lives with them 6 months out of the year.
I don't disagree with that. So, would you be in favor of taking more deer than your game commission said was OK (maybe not YOU, personally......but if someone else did) to right the dynamics? Would you tear up a buck tag (or 2....or 3) at the beginning of the season, because you knew the area wouldn't handle you taking more than one? These questions aren't that far off from what the other thread is suggesting (sevenmag's), Seriously....what did you mean by this?
I could be wrong, but that sounds like poaching lol. But to your point... yes. In a heartbeat. Our own personal AR that we implemented years ago (our own game laws) is really starting to pay off. We've also got the buck to doe ratio where we think ( best we can tell ) is pretty darn good. Problem is now since the DEC started letting people sign over their doe tags it's been a slaughter fest. People have a license to just keep killing and killing and killing . Just call another buddy and get another tag. Might not be a doe/deer left in another couple years lol.
I appreciate your honesty. But, that line of thinking (in sevenmag's thread) was equated with as harsh a term as "anarchy". I happen to agree with you. What's even more telling is....I know of "officials" who'll "green light" folks to handle situations in their respective areas. It's no longer necessary (change in regs). But, I know it's occurred.
I'm actually surprised at some of the answers here, I would have thought there would be an overwhelming "yes" to answer the OP question. If there were some kind of freak winter that killed most of the deer herd, I would think folks would rather skip a year hunting to bring back the numbers rather than hurt them further by hunting. Shows what I know I guess.
