Jump to content
SPEARFISH

How many ANTLERED > = 3" Bucks did you shoot this year?

How many bucks?  

120 members have voted

  1. 1. How many bucks did you shoot this year?

    • one
      45
    • two
      28
    • three
      7
    • four
      5
    • five
      1
    • six
      1
    • ZERO ZIP ZILCH NADA
      32


Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, Codaboy said:

And what about the guys who don t tag, and kill 12 bucks a season

It's illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Pathman said:

Just my two cents here guys, but you’re not getting anywhere near accurate data from this very limited sample size, and I also believe you’re not getting anywhere near the truth  on the majority of these polls, and I’ll tell you why I say that. 

Just like any other instance when an individual is asked to offer their opinion or thoughts on a somewhat controversial subject, the vocal minority will always deter free expression, and this is no different. Go to any town meeting where Deer issues are discussed, and you’ll see first hand how the extremely vocal minority will intimidate the reasonable folks into submission, I’ve seen it over and over. 

Same goes for a site like this where individuals become known and have a degree of credibility, or simply are very vocal about their opinions, that dynamic will factor into the substance of responses, and/or whether someone responds at all, as they will try to avoid any form of embarrassment or ridicule from other individuals. 

Save for a few individuals who could care less what others think, the vast majority will not expose themselves to negative comments, pressure, or flat out intimidation by others, so not only is this forum a very small sample size, but it’s highly skewed to the will of the vocal few. 

And just to answer the question before it’s asked, the reason I don’t offer more details on the types and numbers of Deer I take, is because I’m involved in a number of deer management programs that do not care to have any information made public, so I refrain from adding my info, because if not viewed from a strict management perspective may appear to be other than reasonable or totally misinterpreted.

And one last thought if I might. All of you who are espousing these ideas and plans for the management of the deer herd in NJ, and while you have your hearts in the right place, your heads are not, because you’re overlooking the most basic of issues here, which is that you can not manage the state as a whole! The private land/ farmland/suburban landscapes would be virtually devastated within two to three years if your plans were implemented. 

The various lands must be separated and managed completely differently for the goals of each. The state hunting lands need more deer to keep the recreational hunters happy, which would have to be done through regulations that allow for that type of population density, while the other environments need to be managed to the tolerance level of the general public (remember, the other 98% of the NJ population).

So as much as many of your “pie in the sky” plans appear like the promised land, they are not based on any scientific data whatsoever and would likely be impossible to sustain. 

 

 

 

 

I for one am well aware this is just a very small sampling as opposed to polling entire state.  

My "pie in the sky" doesn't ignore science and management, I think it's time to go to a true quota system, per hunter, per year and disconnect science and management from permits and weapons.  They can still manage by zone and WMA (WMA and public land should be zoned individually) and charge hunters by zone, and also designate seasons as they wish.   BUT - QUOTA is applied per hunter, per zone. 

2 flex buck tags per hunter - over all zones, but antlerless quotas go per each zone you buy. 

Here is an example. 

A hunter buys his license, and pays "x" amount for zones 2 and 5.  Those zone permits - the cost may go up to make sure state gets theirs.     That hunter takes a buck in zone 2 September, and zone 5, November - both with bow.   He can't shoot any more bucks that season in any zone.      Zone 2 has a quota per hunter of "4" antlerless" and zone 5 of "6 antlerless".       That hunter can continue to fill his freezer with doe, any season, any weapon.     If he would rather take his bucks with guns, well that's his choice, but the concept is quite simple.   This is a "fair" system to all, and gives all equal opportunity at antlered deer and also puts the decision as to when and how - to the hunter, and not the state. 

Say that same hunter only hunts public land.  He buys a zone for Whittingham, and one for Delaware water Gap recreation area.    Whittingham may have a "2 antlerless" quota, and DWG might have a "3 antlerless" quota.   This public land hunter can take 2 bucks, and 5 antlerless total.    (again - just an example, the biologists would hopefully better set REAL quotas and never use the term "unlimited" again). 

Edited by JHbowhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Codaboy said:

No hidden but it a happening

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
 

Are you confessing?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The percentage of hunters that take ZERO is much higher, over 70%.  If there's around 70000 hunters and only 20000 bucks are shot.  Even higher if you consider that many guys shoot 2 or more.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you confessing?  
No jerkoff, good try thou. Your an idiot if you don t think it s not happening. Dude killed 27 deer with 12 bucks just this season. And no I'm not gonna snitch on anybody

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Codaboy said:

No jerkoff, good try thou. Your an idiot if you don t think it s not happening. Dude killed 27 deer with 12 bucks just this season. And no I'm not gonna snitch on anybody

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
 

Settle down Francis.  If you know its happening and you're not reporting it then you're a criminal too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Settle down Francis.  If you know its happening and you're not reporting it then you're a criminal too.
Where does it say in the law book I'm a criminal. Or is that just an opinion. But eather way the harvest numbers are off do to illegally taken deer

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Codaboy said:

Where does it say in the law book I'm a criminal. Or is that just an opinion. But eather way the harvest numbers are off do to illegally taken deer

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
 

the harvest reporting system could not be easier, but as you know and are stating, there are generational outlaws and poachers throughout the state that never follow game laws and never report harvests. They were born and raised into it, but I do feel their numbers are dwindling, but you are absolutely correct - they do exist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, JHbowhunter said:

My "pie in the sky" doesn't ignore science and management, I think it's time to go to a true quota system, per hunter, per year and disconnect science and management from permits and weapons.

Ok JH, let’s discuss. So in your above response,  you are  not ignoring science, but you want to disconnect from it, which will  it be?

If we “disconnect” from the science, then what are we basing our quotas on? I’ll tell you what, conjecture and emotion, which is the MO of the antis, not the F&W depts  around the country. 

That being said, you may not agree with their systems and data charts, but at least they have them, without at least some form of evidence, it’s simply pulling ideas out of the air. 

Your presumption that a Two buck quota will be the ideal formula is based on speculation, and what you as an individual “thinks” will remedy the problem and satisfy the masses. It appears you’re basing your premise on the fact that six bucks are currently allowed, so that has to mean that Two will be better and increase the availability of bucks, this may or may not be so, but my issue is that you’re basing your presumption on zero data. You can’t take one, or a few  individual’s local observations and apply that to an overall management strategy for the entire state, or even one or two zones, unless you have data.

Show me the data that suggests that the current tag allocations have caused a significant downward trend in buck kills in NJ. Then compare that data to what the overal harvest trend has been and see if there is a correlation between the two, if there’s not, then you may actually have some data to prove your system would be the way to go.  

I agree of course that the first step needs to be a separation of state and private properties, I don’t think it can even resonably be argued that there’s not a drastic difference in population size between the two, but again,  “show me the data!”

Im not trying to tell anyone what to think, but when guys make statements based on small sample sizes and emotion, and then advocate that position as if it came down from the mountain top on a stone tablet, it’s very misleading to the masses and needs to be backed by data, that’s all I’m saying.

Show me some numbers that show why your quota system is the way to go, and I’d be happy to help spread the word from the mountain top!😁

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Pathman said:

 

Ok JH, let’s discuss. So in your above response,  you are  not ignoring science, but you want to disconnect from it, which will  it be?

If we “disconnect” from the science, then what are we basing our quotas on? I’ll tell you what, conjecture and emotion, which is the MO of the antis, not the F&W depts  around the country. 

That being said, you may not agree with their systems and data charts, but at least they have them, without at least some form of evidence, it’s simply pulling ideas out of the air. 

Your presumption that a Two buck quota will be the ideal formula is based on speculation, and what you as an individual “thinks” will remedy the problem and satisfy the masses. It appears you’re basing your premise on the fact that six bucks are currently allowed, so that has to mean that Two will be better and increase the availability of bucks, this may or may not be so, but my issue is that you’re basing your presumption on zero data. You can’t take one, or a few  individual’s local observations and apply that to an overall management strategy for the entire state, or even one or two zones, unless you have data.

Show me the data that suggests that the current tag allocations have caused a significant downward trend in buck kills in NJ. Then compare that data to what the overal harvest trend has been and see if there is a correlation between the two, if there’s not, then you may actually have some data to prove your system would be the way to go.  

I agree of course that the first step needs to be a separation of state and private properties, I don’t think it can even resonably be argued that there’s not a drastic difference in population size between the two, but again,  “show me the data!”

Im not trying to tell anyone what to think, but when guys make statements based on small sample sizes and emotion, and then advocate that position as if it came down from the mountain top on a stone tablet, it’s very misleading to the masses and needs to be backed by data, that’s all I’m saying.

Show me some numbers that show why your quota system is the way to go, and I’d be happy to help spread the word from the mountain top!😁

 

Science belongs to quotas, creating the various weapon seasons is all about revenue.  I don't think my proposal is that complicated because population control should only be about quotas per year, not how many are shot with each weapon per each season. Dead is dead - weapon or season should not matter.   I am trying to explain it best I can - but I suppose it it confusing. 

All I am saying is let each hunter decide and pay for which zone they want to hunt, and which weapon(s).  Quotas are simply "x' amount of deer, per hunter, per zone.   Doesn't matter how and when you fill it - the state will still provide those choices and of course make us pay separately for bow, shotgun, or muzzy. 

2 flexible buck tags is my opinion, but even speaking with Carol Stanko a few years back , she agreed 2 is bout right because statistically those that kill more than 2 a year, are nearly irrelevant. Maybe 3 or 4 is better, but I would prefer that it be "flexible". Dead is dead - season or weapon should not matter when it comes to science. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JHbowhunter said:

2 flexible buck tags is my opinion, but even speaking with Carol Stanko a few years back , she agreed 2 is bout right because statistically those that kill more than 2 a year, are nearly irrelevant.

Ok, so if you agree with the Divisions lead Deer biologist that there is no statistical significance to hunters who take more than Two Deer, then what the hell are you arguing about?!!!😂

I would venture to say that if she is agreeing that a Two buck avg. was statistically “about right,” I’m pretty certain she didn’t pull that number out of thin air, I’m sure there are mountains of data that she used to determine that, as opposed to  opining that Two bucks would solve the ills of the NJ Hunter. 

That’s my entire discussion point here, before we get all wrapped up in emotions and start throwing out quotas and restrictions and weapon limits, and this weapon vs. that,  etc., let’s have some solid data in order to make an educated decision (not inferring otherwise to you JH) rather than flying off half cocked with plans that don’t have any basis in reality in regards to the overall management of the deer in NJ. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Pathman said:

Ok, so if you agree with the Divisions lead Deer biologist that there is no statistical significance to hunters who take more than Two Deer, then what the hell are you arguing about?!!!😂

I would venture to say that if she is agreeing that a Two buck avg. was statistically “about right,” I’m pretty certain she didn’t pull that number out of thin air, I’m sure there are mountains of data that she used to determine that, as opposed to  opining that Two bucks would solve the ills of the NJ Hunter. 

That’s my entire discussion point here, before we get all wrapped up in emotions and start throwing out quotas and restrictions and weapon limits, and this weapon vs. that,  etc., let’s have some solid data in order to make an educated decision (not inferring otherwise to you JH) rather than flying off half cocked with plans that don’t have any basis in reality in regards to the overall management of the deer in NJ. 

 

I still don't think you get my point. I am simply trying to eliminate the stupid permit/weapon system that has NOTHING to do with management, and all about revenue. It limits us the hunter to what we can do and when. I am simply saying give us individual quotas (per zone), make public land their own zones,  and just set the seasons and weapons as they see fit based on their science.   If done right - its a win/win. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand, but why would you want to eliminate flexibility for the hunter?

You don’t have to purchase all the permits currently offered, and you could certainly take two bucks without buying any permits, so why would you wa t to take  away other hunters option to hunt certain times of the year that may be their only available time, especially if they’re willing to pay for the opportunity? 

Again, you’re fixating on what you would prefer the system to look like, and not considering the big picture my friend. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...