Anyone see the NYODN yet?

[BizCT]

Yea I've posted several 3.5 year olds that my Dad has taken, but besides him and you I haven't seen much of anything else posted. I wouldn't say it's "easy" to get a mature buck every single year in 3N. By the way, can you send me the link to your posts of the 3 8 pointers? I looked back at your posts, but can't find them. Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited July 28, 2015 by Biz-R-OWorld

[Doc]

So how high do you want your taxes to be? The simple fact is, proper management would cost big bucks for the DEC to do on their own. The department is simply not configured to be able to do it. What would need to be done is the wildlife management portions of the department should be seperate from the rest that deal with pollution, etc. and become its own entity with its own funding. Politics should be kept out of it for the most part, and the department should have control over the game laws and regulations without having to make every change go through the state legislature. Then, this state might set itself up to be able to manage things better than they do now. They would still need the cooperation of co-ops, hunting clubs, landowners and hunters to get things done though. All of that would be at a cost though, more tax dollars, because we all know Albany isnt going to curtail their spending on handouts and political perk programs to fund a new department for wildlife.

When it comes to subdividing management zones, there is no money saved by making them larger than what will be effective. We have a WMU system in place that advertises itself as being designed to accommodate habitat and land use variations. That is in place, and staffed and costs whatever it costs. I get the feeling that they are trying to dazzle us with footwork, with no real positive change taking place. we can't manage things with all the WMUs, but somehow mysteriously we will do a better job by glopping all these divisions together into only 9 areas. It feels like someone is trying to slip something past us by pretending on one hand to be doing something wonderful and then implementing all that in a less effective zoning than what we currently have. Where is the logic?

 

I do not argue the point that the DEC is structured completely wrong, but I truly hold out no hope at all that we will be seeing those kinds of changes. And maybe that is what should be talked about, but it is not what is being talked about. My comments are focused on the original theme of this thread. But since the subject of costs and effectiveness have been brought up, I have to note that if you think that it is expensive maintaining the WMUs that we currently have, brace yourself before you begin thinking about the expense of re-structuring the entire department. I have seen the restructuring cost of corporations. I would expect the restructuring of an entire state agency would be no less and likely much higher. If you want to worry about elevating taxes ..... now you are talking some real dollars.

 

I'm simply concerned that we will be losing a more closely controlled existing zoning system (WMU system) for another band-aid that is by design worse and less finely married to habitat and local conditions than what we already have. How on earth does that make any sense at all? I'm not a big fan of smoke and mirrors, and that is why I have to ask how a huge expansion of management zones is either saving any money or doing the management job better by combining diverse habitats and varied land uses and population profiles. There's a dance going on that I really don't understand.

 

By the way does it only bother me that the entire system is built on statistics, and every single year something basic and fundamental is being massively changed thereby destroying all the history that these statistics are built on (just a little side-thought)?

[Larry]

Hey just to let you guys know they’re not getting rid of WMU’s. when you apply for your DMP’s you still would apply for say 8m or 9p all that will be the same. They are just grouping WMU’s from the same geographic area. You may see different  reg’s for some zones. If anything they are trying to micro-manage the states deer herd.

[gjs4]

Ooh- only 45000 dmps as a target for 8g.... All based on science and fact....

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Larry]

so what you are trying to say they want to kill 6286 antlerless deer in 8g i'll do my part by killing 1 or 2 I have a place to hunt

[growalot]

I WANT YOU ALL TO GO TO GROWING DEER TV AND WATCH THIS WEEKS SEGMENT. PERHAPS WE SHOULD ALL E MAIL THE LINK TO HURST AND THE GOV. OFFICE...

[Larry]

so what's your point isn't that what the dec is trying to do by making zone

[Doc]

Hey just to let you guys know they’re not getting rid of WMU’s. when you apply for your DMP’s you still would apply for say 8m or 9p all that will be the same. They are just grouping WMU’s from the same geographic area. You may see different  reg’s for some zones. If anything they are trying to micro-manage the states deer herd.

That is true. They are simply overlaying another less explicit system over top of the existing system just to make sure nobody can follow what they are doing. I'm sorry, that is cynical and probably not exactly fair. But I see nothing that is accomplished by this new redundant system of buck management zoning that is not already being done better by the WMU boundaries system. It's not micromanagement, but instead diluting buck management by using larger zones for that purpose.

[growalot]

Larry..I Suppose the point depends on what you think they are trying to accomplish. If it is to manager for bigger better bucks....certain zones may get more buck...but not the better bucKs they are thinking. Again in this whole picture...the DEC will fail incorporate other needed changes..like the lack of Forrest management they have displayed over the years...loss of CPR,'s Also just look the size of Those zones..DO you think the soil quality is equal in them?

Edited July 29, 2015 by growalot

[mmkay]

Yea I've posted several 3.5 year olds that my Dad has taken, but besides him and you I haven't seen much of anything else posted. I wouldn't say it's "easy" to get a mature buck every single year in 3N. By the way, can you send me the link to your posts of the 3 8 pointers? I looked back at your posts, but can't find them. Thanks.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

there is a thread called '

Your Biggest NY Buck

 

 

you'll find three 3N of my bucks in there....but I was wrong.  I didn't post 3 8 points.  there are 2 eight points and a 7 point posted here.  all were taken on NYC property.  One was Horse pond RD the other two next to the buddist temple on 301

[BizCT]

Nice ones. Now I remember those. Yea anything over 100" is good for our area. Those are the Kent dep lands with unique AR rules, etc right?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[growalot]

Perhaps the NYS DEC could learn from programs such as this...just saying...

 

http://www.mdwfp.com/wildlife-hunting/deer-program.aspx

[Bendog]

As far as the DMP allocations, they can offer 88 million tags in some units, but if hunters are grabbing them up it means nothing....that's what the DEC is dealing with in some units, notably in Region 8.....they've all but air-dropped DMPS but they aren't "selling" them all.....so they are looking at other means of getting the kind of antlerless harvest they want.....along the way they are overlooking – or maybe just realizing they can't control – the issue of access.....they're basically trying to manage something they have no control over.....if hunter can't get to the deer they are powerless....

[mmkay]

Nice ones. Now I remember those. Yea anything over 100" is good for our area. Those are the Kent dep lands with unique AR rules, etc right?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

1 was taken on the NYC land off of Horsepond...no AR there

 

2 were taken off the NYC property off rt 301.  One the year before they went to AR, the other the year they went to AR.  now that property is over run with spikes and fork horns.  all the 8 point genes have been taken out...the only breeding bucks left are rang horns...the property is not as good as it was 10 years ago...it used to be a big buck paradise..now its a fork horn oasis

[steve863]

mmkay, how heavily are these areas you talk about hunted?  I would think that since there are or were abundant 8 pointers running around, the areas don't get heavy hunting pressure?  Which would almost be a bit unusual since they are located so close to the NYC area.

 

 

 

[BizCT]

1 was taken on the NYC land off of Horsepond...no AR there

 

2 were taken off the NYC property off rt 301.  One the year before they went to AR, the other the year they went to AR.  now that property is over run with spikes and fork horns.  all the 8 point genes have been taken out...the only breeding bucks left are rang horns...the property is not as good as it was 10 years ago...it used to be a big buck paradise..now its a fork horn oasis

 

That downtrend sounds similar to "Lockwood" DEP land in Carmel. My Dad got several nice bucks out of there several years ago, but now it so popular with hunters and scent bombs everywhere, etc that you are lucky to see a spike. No AR there either.

[phade]

mmkay, how heavily are these areas you talk about hunted?  I would think that since there are or were abundant 8 pointers running around, the areas don't get heavy hunting pressure?  Which would almost be a bit unusual since they are located so close to the NYC area.

 

And not worthy of making public knowledge that they aren't pressured as much.

[mmkay]

mmkay, how heavily are these areas you talk about hunted?  I would think that since there are or were abundant 8 pointers running around, the areas don't get heavy hunting pressure?  Which would almost be a bit unusual since they are located so close to the NYC area.

 

 

horsepond is 1000 ac.  on open days NYC try to limit it to less then 150 hunters.  these lands get lots of pressure.  however they are surrounded by Fawnstock state park and lots of large private tracks of land.  

 

hunting NYC land is like being in the middle of a pumpkin patch.  if its brown its down on these lands for most...you need to be selective if you want a big deer.  but if you want something to eat that ok as well.  but most hunters are lazy and won't walk the extra miles or check out the thickest swamps

 

in the end hunting is all about ACESS to land...nothing else.  I hunt as many properties that I can each year.  most years I check out 20 to 30 different piece of land.  when you stumble upon a large bucks area you know it.  If I get lucky and find such an area, I usually have a few hours or day at best to tag him...if I don't get the buck right away, he figures out i'm there and disappears.  I try to get him in the AM as he's traveling to check does or mid morning when he's sitting on a small rise in the middle of the thicket swamp I can find

 

lastly there are abundant 8pts all over the place.  they are just smart deer.  hunters need to put in the days and hunt where the deer are (hence multiple properties).  

Edited July 29, 2015 by mmkay

[WNYBuckHunter]

When it comes to subdividing management zones, there is no money saved by making them larger than what will be effective. We have a WMU system in place that advertises itself as being designed to accommodate habitat and land use variations. That is in place, and staffed and costs whatever it costs. I get the feeling that they are trying to dazzle us with footwork, with no real positive change taking place. we can't manage things with all the WMUs, but somehow mysteriously we will do a better job by glopping all these divisions together into only 9 areas. It feels like someone is trying to slip something past us by pretending on one hand to be doing something wonderful and then implementing all that in a less effective zoning than what we currently have. Where is the logic?

 

I do not argue the point that the DEC is structured completely wrong, but I truly hold out no hope at all that we will be seeing those kinds of changes. And maybe that is what should be talked about, but it is not what is being talked about. My comments are focused on the original theme of this thread. But since the subject of costs and effectiveness have been brought up, I have to note that if you think that it is expensive maintaining the WMUs that we currently have, brace yourself before you begin thinking about the expense of re-structuring the entire department. I have seen the restructuring cost of corporations. I would expect the restructuring of an entire state agency would be no less and likely much higher. If you want to worry about elevating taxes ..... now you are talking some real dollars.

 

I'm simply concerned that we will be losing a more closely controlled existing zoning system (WMU system) for another band-aid that is by design worse and less finely married to habitat and local conditions than what we already have. How on earth does that make any sense at all? I'm not a big fan of smoke and mirrors, and that is why I have to ask how a huge expansion of management zones is either saving any money or doing the management job better by combining diverse habitats and varied land uses and population profiles. There's a dance going on that I really don't understand.

 

By the way does it only bother me that the entire system is built on statistics, and every single year something basic and fundamental is being massively changed thereby destroying all the history that these statistics are built on (just a little side-thought)?

 

I dont see anything stating that they will do away with current WMUs. This is all about buck management, not herd or doe management.

 

[steve863]

horsepond is 1000 ac.  on open days NYC try to limit it to less then 150 hunters.  these lands get lots of pressure.  however they are surrounded by Fawnstock state park and lots of large private tracks of land.  

 

hunting NYC land is like being in the middle of a pumpkin patch.  if its brown its down on these lands for most...you need to be selective if you want a big deer.  but if you want something to eat that ok as well.  but most hunters are lazy and won't walk the extra miles or check out the thickest swamps

 

in the end hunting is all about ACESS to land...nothing else.  I hunt as many properties that I can each year.  most years I check out 20 to 30 different piece of land.  when you stumble upon a large bucks area you know it.  If I get lucky and find such an area, I usually have a few hours or day at best to tag him...if I don't get the buck right away, he figures out i'm there and disappears.  I try to get him in the AM as he's traveling to check does or mid morning when he's sitting on a small rise in the middle of the thicket swamp I can find

 

lastly there are abundant 8pts all over the place.  they are just smart deer.  hunters need to put in the days and hunt where the deer are (hence multiple properties).  

 

Out of these 20 or 30 different pieces of land, are they all state or NYC land?  I didn't think there was that much state or NYC land around there.  I couldn't imagine anyone finding that much private land to hunt in an area like Putnam county.  Most people can't even find one private spot.  Finding more than a small handful would be close to miraculous.  I think Biz would back me on this statement also.

[mmkay]

I have access to about 10 to 15 private properties in Westchester / Putnam / Dutchess/ Rockland.  Also a few in CT.  some are 1 to 2 ac, most are 5 to 20 ac.  Most years I don't hunt them, but I do check and make sure i still have permission.  these properties are owned by family, friends, co-workers, a car sales guy that sold me my truck, farmers and even my dentist.  

 

as for state land / NYC land.  NYC has at least 10 within 1 to 2 hr drive, their is lots of state land.  also local towns often own land that is huntable.  

 

There is a co-op complex in Putnam that has 25 ac's of woods that back up to a nature perserve in putnam...not tell you where this one is...lots of big boys in there.  

 

lots of horse farms down here, apple orchards and rich people with a few ac's of land.  You just need to ask.  but ask now.  ask when your doctors, dentist, bagel shop, car dealer, ask the guy on the train, ask teh guy at home depot...ASK!...always ask...have your wife ask for you.

[BizCT]

There are quite a few DEP lands in Putnam but most are very crowded as mentioned. Private land is tough to get access on in Putnam county at least for me. I'm 31 and I've hunted 3 private pieces. 2 of which can't be hunted anymore because of new housing built, etc. The 8 acre piece we hunt has produced over the last 20+ years. It borders hundreds of land hunted by a club and they probably push deer to us. They come in late, start moving by 9am, etc.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Doc]

I dont see anything stating that they will do away with current WMUs. This is all about buck management, not herd or doe management.

 

And I never said that they intended to. But their new "buck management" scheme is based on the new 9 unit zoning of the state, which is a less accurate, redundant zoning system overlaid on the existing WMU divisions, (and you were worried about extra tax burdens .... lol). So why wouldn't you use the existing finer broken down, system of management units (which by the way all of the NYS statistics history is based off of) rather than diluting your statistics with larger more diversified areas. Larger areas do make it easier to over generalize results. It also makes it easier to pass inappropriate regulations because of all the additional land being lumped together. Larger areas do not allow for incorporation of unique habitat or population densities? Larger units do not account for changes in hunter densities that impact buck harvests and pressure. Whether it is bucks or does that you are managing, I cannot think of one good reason to manage bucks on a larger area basis and I haven't heard anyone else offer a logical explanation either.

[phade]

And I never said that they intended to. But their new "buck management" scheme is based on the new 9 unit zoning of the state, which is a less accurate, redundant zoning system overlaid on the existing WMU divisions, (and you were worried about extra tax burdens .... lol). So why wouldn't you use the existing finer broken down, system of management units (which by the way all of the NYS statistics history is based off of) rather than diluting your statistics with larger more diversified areas. Larger areas do make it easier to over generalize results. It also makes it easier to pass inappropriate regulations because of all the additional land being lumped together. Larger areas do not allow for incorporation of unique habitat or population densities? Larger units do not account for changes in hunter densities that impact buck harvests and pressure. Whether it is bucks or does that you are managing, I cannot think of one good reason to manage bucks on a larger area basis and I haven't heard anyone else offer a logical explanation either.

 

The consideration about woods to ag makes me think they're really looking at soil quality and carrying capacity vs. the traditional regions. One of the rare things I like about it so far. If you look at the map, it largely follows soil qualities and ag concentration.

[WNYBuckHunter]

And I never said that they intended to. But their new "buck management" scheme is based on the new 9 unit zoning of the state, which is a less accurate, redundant zoning system overlaid on the existing WMU divisions, (and you were worried about extra tax burdens .... lol). So why wouldn't you use the existing finer broken down, system of management units (which by the way all of the NYS statistics history is based off of) rather than diluting your statistics with larger more diversified areas. Larger areas do make it easier to over generalize results. It also makes it easier to pass inappropriate regulations because of all the additional land being lumped together. Larger areas do not allow for incorporation of unique habitat or population densities? Larger units do not account for changes in hunter densities that impact buck harvests and pressure. Whether it is bucks or does that you are managing, I cannot think of one good reason to manage bucks on a larger area basis and I haven't heard anyone else offer a logical explanation either.

 

Sure sounded like you were worried about it when you said...

 

"I'm simply concerned that we will be losing a more closely controlled existing zoning system (WMU system) for another band-aid that is by design worse and less finely married to habitat and local conditions than what we already have."

 

In any case, as has been explained already, the new zones are based upon similar overall habitat characteristics. In other words, the average yearling buck in the area that I hunt, is larger than the average yearling buck in the Dacks or Catskills, and it is mostly due to soil quality, forage quality, etc. If you want to manage things to try and protect the yearling bucks, the rules you make down in the Catskills arent going to work very well around here. The rules they make in my area, will generally work in Monroe or Wayne county though. If you dont understand how it is less expensive to manage 9 zones vs 89 WMUs, especially when there is no need to, well I dont know what to tell you.

 

I really think the zone layout is fine for the purposes of buck management, Im just waiting to see how they intend to do it.