NM proposed regulations

3

30inchbuck

Guest
Game and Fish is wanting input for new regulations for the next few years.

Wanted to remove the antler point restrictions that are currently in place.

What do you guys think?????

I have mixed feelings would like to hear from you guys. Before I send in my input.
 
Maybe we need to take a look a what the Jic has done and follow their lead (at least for the north end of the state) if we want extra large bucks with low draw odds. I think we have two problems that are not being addressed or are not getting enough attention. The first is poaching. This comes down to funding the time and expenses. The other larger issue is habitat. Everyone loves to think we are going to have the great hunting of the 50?s and 60?s. It not going to happen. All you have to do is look at any old photos of the forest back then and the forest now. Back then they were open with lots of grass and forage for all the critters. Now they are chocked closed with trees and little grass and shrub under the trees relative to what the forest was like back then. There are many other issues but this is just my opinion. If we really want to bring the deer back we need to have more fawns hit the ground and only have to worry about yotes not food. I really could care less about the point restriction. One more idea is that we need to raise the license fee to about $100.00 for residents. I know this is a lot but I feel this would eliminate all the weekend warriors that go out to drink beer and shoot at anything which would make for a better hunt for all of us that really love to be out there. Again this is just my opinion and you know what is said about them!
 
I personally think the antler restriction is great! Let some of them bucks grow. I see more bucks now in areas were there weren't but a few.

It was a slater fest when people were popping forkers.

The way I see it is them big or monster bucks pass there genes on & the new crop of bucks don't even get a chance to pass on the big bucks genes.
 
I would like to see a full three point on one side. Not this "could be a point, I'll shoot and go see" crap we have now. Hunters have told this Game commision for years about this reg. to no avail. Personally, I'ld like to see the hunting curtailed for about three years but with all the revenue the Game Dept. would be out, that won't happen either. Money, money, money!! Mooooonnnnneeeeyyyyy.
 
I think the point restriction is good. Leave those young bucks alone for a year. It seems like they should give out some doe tags, but that won't likely happen. I was talking with a Fish and Game officer and he said the deer populations are actually rebounding right now. I sure have seen alot more deer in the last two years, but I'm also out looking for them more. And I'd like to think I'm getting better at finding them. Poaching is a major problem, but so is enforcement. It most cost alot to effectively cover all of the public ground here. I'm not sure increasing the tag price would cut down on the beer-drinking yahoos. There is probably only one guy out of the six of them that is actually holding a tag. But of course they all brought their guns!
 
Why should they give out doe tags? I don't know anywhere in the state that has too many deer. It seems like the point restrictions are pretty useless without significant reductions in the number of tags. Sure now you have a better opertunity at harvesting a 3 point deer but there is more pressure on large deer since the average yahoos can no longer shoot there dinks and go home.
 
I agree with the point restriction, however I remember when they first instituted it, a know a co-worker who with his own eyes saw 3 forkers that were left for dead up in unit 2B. This is a good unit, so those hunters may have been succesful otherwise, so it's possible 6 deer were taken on 3 tags.

Another thing the Jic does is they are very aggressive and proactive with their predator control. The state hasn't been aggressive with predator control since they stopped poisoning coyotes back in the day....maybe even before I was born. It also doesn't help that fur prices are in the toilet. I remember going to my grandmother's house in the winter time, and my uncles had all their pelts on stretchers, getting ready to go sell. Nowadays, people hunt coyotes for pleasure, but the numbers taken I would guess pale in comparison to the amount taken when fur prices were high.

I also agree that poaching is rampant in this state. I remember growing up that almost every hunt we would run into a checkpoint. I haven't seen a checkpoint in years, and the last one I saw was for an elk hunt.
 
Point restriction sure sound good, but where have the worked in other states.

After reading the pro's and con's on the website, I vote for any buck.
 
What about if they made the regulations for the specific weapon type? Like say 3-point for rifle, 2-point for muzzle, and any buck for bow. This actually makes more sense to me than the certain unit questions that they have on there now.

This is my first post, I'M a new member. I was just wondering what you guys think about that.
 
ELKMAN,
The pros and cons sound convincing but they don't give specifics or references to these other states studies.To compare to Montana is ridiculous, they have unlimited resident tags a very long season. Although we have a draw, there aren't exactly fewer tags, We at least don't have a long season. For them to say that they killed all genetic potential through an antler restriction is ridiculous as does carry as much potential as bucks.

The problem with people shooting forks and letting them lay is real and I have have seen it firsthand, but California's figures seem high Again they don't give the actual numbers. It was the same way when NM went from spikes to forks but it eventually leveled out and just because there is an restriction doesn't mean everyone groundchecks deer. The people who are honest and ethical make sure before they pull the trigger and the slobs who left forks lay would probably poach deer anyway.

The NM Black & Blue need to get out in the field and do their own studies and not rely on other states and "computer wildlife management" They tried the any buck and the fork antlered buck tags and they didn't work then. Let's give the 3pt restriction a try not just 2 years and call it quits.

Jared
 
I am more leaning towards the any buck rule.

1. The late fawn drops because of immature bucks breeding is a very convincing point.

2. I also have to believe that I am not the only one that would rather go home without harvesting an animal than kill a small deer. So I would think that there would be some self regulation on immmature deer.

3. I think the "Trophy Areas" in paticular would me even more self regulating.

Also think that predator control, habitat is more important to growing the deer population than a point restriction. I think the statewide draw implemented last year was a great step. Lets keep that and managed the numbers by the number of tags given out.

just my 2 cents.
 
30INCH

I agree on the self regulation as probably most others on this site but there are a lot more meat hunters than selective trophy hunters even in units such as 2B.At least vote for the Forked antler deer instead of the any buck!!

As far as late fawns that can be due to the late archery hunt in the rut(Please note I am NOT bagging on archery hunters)which has also been noted in studies.I doubt yearling spikes cover as many does as they think.

I agree about habitat and predator control. Knock the hell out of coyotes and pray for rain!!! As far as the "draw" it is a small step in the right direction. but the Black and Blue needs to manage with science and allocate tag #s with surveys rather than the average # of tags that were sold for the last 3 years which is how they did it last year. Common sense tells us that in this drought year there should be fewer tags. Are there?? Oh yeah we need $$$s to do all these things and that is something I don't have any type of answer for!!!

Good luck in the draws!!!
Jared
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom