5 replies to this topic

[HounderEmily]

The press announcement copied below was released by DEC's Region 4 office to highlight the outcome of recently completed Citizen Task Forces (CTFs) in WMUs 4F and 4O.  You can read more about the CTF process at www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7207.html
 
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) announced today that two of its deer Citizen Task Forces have completed their work and made final recommendations to the Department. The task forces convened for wildlife management units (WMU) 4F (which includes most of Otsego County and a portion of western Schoharie County) and 4O (which encompasses the northern portion of Delaware County and small portions of Broome and Chenango counties).
 
The task force for WMU 4F recommended a no net change in the estimated deer population, while the task force for WMU 4O recommended a ten percent increase in the current estimated deer population.
 
DEC will estimate the current deer populations for the two units at the conclusion of the fall hunting season and will then adjust the number of available deer management permits accordingly during the 2011 season. DEC manages the deer population in a given WMU through the use of deer management permits, formerly called doe permits, thereby controlling the number of female deer available to reproduce.
 
"The two task forces did an excellent job and are to be commended for their efforts," said DEC Region 4 Director Gene Kelly. "Members of the task forces were able to weigh a number of competing interests and come up with fair compromises, ones that effectively balance the need to ensure the viability of the region's deer population with the legitimate interests of the hunting community."
 
 The two task forces received input from more than 300 citizens who had an interest in local deer populations. Representation on the task forces included hunters, farmers, forest property owners, conservationists, resource-based businesses and public safety personnel.
 
Citizen task forces were first formed in 1990 to actively involve the public in DEC decision making regarding deer population levels in the various WMUs.
 

[sweet old bill]

If 4O got a 10% increase in herd side they sure did not come over to the town of Franklin and Swart hollow road. We got lots of coy dogs and nothing else. I see in my pasture most days 2 doe with a total of 3 fawns. 
I also so far have found 3 sets of fawn bones on my land from the coy dogs...not a buck to be seen.

[Doc]

I'm afraid that I am not much of a fan of the CTF system. It seems like a part of the deer management system that apparently has a huge influence on harvest and deer density targets that has absolutely no element of science involved at all. The whole thing is based on how the different parts of the public feel about the deer levels. As I look at the various "stakeholders", I am struck by the number of them that involve "anti-deer" financial disciplines vs. the pro-deer stakeholders. I am also aware that when the final discussions happen, the whole thing turns out to be a negotiating process which naturally lends itself to overwhelming influence by those of stronger personalities. That really doesn't seem to be anything that belongs in wildlife management. I agree that public concerns should be solicited and taken into consideration, but they should not be implemented as a part of the official decision making process. That's what we pay the DEC for doing, and we expect the process to be free of emotional and unscientific inputs.

Doc

[HounderEmily]

unofficially, what I heard was that there was a very high turn out by Farm Bureau people who want fewer deer around.  

[Doc]

Quote

unofficially, what I heard was that there was a very high turn out by Farm Bureau people who want fewer deer around. 

That is not surprising. And when they say "public safety personel", you don't suppose they are including insurance people in that do you? On their website, they termed this as some kind of "motorist's" interest Unless AAA has a rep, I would interpret that as insurance interests. And perhaps "forest property owners" might just be the lumber industry. I wonder how they feel about deer? Resource based businesses? ....... well who knows what kinds of anti-deer interests might be represented there. That's exactly my point, there are an awful lot of people eligible for these CTFs that would be quite happy if there were no deer at all. The only hope is that the hunter representatives have a huge persuasive personality that can steer decisions in the negotiation part of the process toward the pro-deer side of things.

But the big objection that I have against the whole process is that it introduces such things as financial interests, politics, and public opinion in something that should really be based on sound biological management principles. Just where does habitat quality and availability get factored in and other factors that used to be considered when setting the goals and limits. I don't know, maybe I'm being a bit too biased (and I know I am), but it seems to me that somebody let the foxes take over the administration of the henhouse and even invented a process for them to do so.

Doc

[wztirem]

It appears to me that the DEC has already made up their mind . Thanks but no thanks!