Anyone see the NYODN yet?

[WNYBuckHunter]

Ok well there it is. "More efficient than changing rules wmu by wmu". Efficiency equals easier for dec. But I think at the expense of flexibility and management success. I don't see it as that complicated to go Wmu by wmu. We'll see though. They'll do what they are gonna do and I will continue to hunt.

 

Well the reasoning behind it is habitat types and the average size of a yearling buck in that type of habitat. Say the average yearling buck in the catskills is a fork horn, they have to come up with a strategy to try and save that buck, but still allow older bucks to be taken, so they put a 3 on a side AR rule in place. Around here, the average yearling has 3 or 4 points on a side, so the 3 point rule wouldnt do much. In fact, you might end up with a lot of high grading going on, where the best yearlings are taken out. So they have to come up with a different strategy for this area. Do they need to point out each WMU individually? Nope, they can do it in larger zones, like they are doing. It will make things easier on the DEC and hunters alike, especially ones that hunt multiple spots in multiple WMUs, theres less to remember.

 

Personally I think this is a precursor to statewide ARs, and I dont like it. I understand it, but I dont like it.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I guess I can understand their groupings in the map, I hunt in most of the upstate areas at some point in the seasons. I do wish they would quit dicking around and go with a full doe permit draw for all doe take though. all lottery doe take and they are good what ever season you choose to hunt. seems like a better approach and gives all style hunters the same opportunity. I wouldn't mind the one buck but will be curious how they utilize these zones.

[mmkay]

I’ve been reading this post for a while and understand that everyone wants a better deer herd and greater number/size of bucks.  I just want to share an idea that I don’t think was brought up in this post, if it was I missed it.

 

My one word solution to better NYS hunting is LOGGING.  Log all the NY State lands.  Do it responsibly, but do it.  If you get new growth (grasses, shrubs)on state lands, you’ll see deer populations increase vastly.  You'll also see grouse again, more turkeys and other shootable critters

 

Deer can’t eat what they can’t reach.  Grasses don’t grow if the sun doesn’t get thru a mature canopy.

 

Just a thought

Edited August 3, 2015 by mmkay

[dbHunterNY]

the tree huggers would hate you ignorantly.

[mmkay]

the tree huggers would hate you ignorantly.

 

 

most already do

[A Sportsman]

I too see this as a precursor to ARs popping up in many places if not statewide. And deep down, that is probably why I am doubtful I will like whatever they've got cooking.

With the changes we see our sport undergoing, specifically with so much investment in food plots And managing land to grow Bucks, I can't help but see these future buck regs as a manifestation of that. And it's upsetting. Call me old school, complacent, whatever.

[phade]

I guess I can understand their groupings in the map, I hunt in most of the upstate areas at some point in the seasons. I do wish they would quit dicking around and go with a full doe permit draw for all doe take though. all lottery doe take and they are good what ever season you choose to hunt. seems like a better approach and gives all style hunters the same opportunity. I wouldn't mind the one buck but will be curious how they utilize these zones.

 

Might as well think of buck management zones here in Roc as buck restriction zones - in one way or another - to force the doe harvests.

 

One of the worst fawning seasons I've seen in every spot I've been to this year. Great. I run alot of cams. You know how many twins I have on cam? Two sets...and that's three counties represented there...

[jjb4900]

The more I think about it, the more I think I'll leave the deer around our place in the Catskills alone, Ar's and few doe make it hard to keep me motivated.......I'll make a few trips up to sit around the fire and smoke a few cigars and take in the sights and smells that keep me coming back and enjoy some good company, maybe I'll try some small game hunting.......I'll get all my venison down on L.I.

[WNYBuckHunter]

I too see this as a precursor to ARs popping up in many places if not statewide. And deep down, that is probably why I am doubtful I will like whatever they've got cooking.

With the changes we see our sport undergoing, specifically with so much investment in food plots And managing land to grow Bucks, I can't help but see these future buck regs as a manifestation of that. And it's upsetting. Call me old school, complacent, whatever.

 

Management practices arent really the driving force behind ARs, not in my opinion. I think its the TV big rack culture that sells the idea that anyone with 50 acres can realistically shoot a 130+, or should be able to. People buy into that nonsense and then feel like they should shove that desire down everyones throat because they dont think there are enough of those deer around. For alot of areas, its simply not true. People dont realize that their property might just not be one that will hold older bucks, and alot of the time there is nothing they can do about it. ARs or not. Other times, they dont have the know how, willingness to do what it takes or access to get the big bucks that are around their area. I hear people all the time saying "NY can be the next Iowa", but it cant, and ARs wont make it that way.

 

ARs will not affect the way I hunt, but I dont want to see them affect the way anyone else hunts either. Id rather spread the message for what voluntary ARs or management practices can do.

[A Sportsman]

I agree With what you say above WNYBuckHunter. My point wasn't to marry land management supporters with mandatory AR Supporters. My comment was just to illustrate how the sport is changing and that the dec seems to be buying in to some of these changes. particularly, as you state, he idea that hunting for big bucks needs to be improved in NYS.

I've been hunting in an AR zone myself for the past 4 or 5 years. Hasn't changed much for me and my group. Cost us a couple deer where 3rd point could not be confirmed in time for a shot.

[Doc]

Quote: "When did I ever say that an additional layer of deer management would cost less than the previous system?"

 

When on reply #65 you commented about your concern relative to taxes ("So how high do you want your taxes to be?") I took it that you were implying that adding on this overlay of zones somehow would be beneficial to the taxation. Frankly, in answer to your question, I want the taxes to stay the same in terms of not "reinventing the wheel" through duplicate zoning.

 

Quote: "This whole thread has been about the new buck management program and map, we arent talking population management, doe management, DMP allocation or anything like that."

 

And no one is talking about any changes to whole herd management. Because you have selective comprehension or are not reading replies you are failing to understand that I am discussing the dilution of the buck management by using huge zones instead of the existing, fairly well thought out WMUs. I don't recall ever talking about DMPs or doe management.

 

Quote: "What I said is that Doc has been insinuating that current WMUs are somehow going to go away, and that instead of focusing on herd management on a smaller, more precise scale, the DEC is looking to broaden its scope."

 

If I were of a mind to waste my time going back to the specific quote, I could show you where I specifically said that WMUs were not going away and that they (DEC) are adding an overlay on top of the existing WMU system.

 

And also, I have said that their buck management is indeed "looking to broaden its scope" (or more accurately diluting their focus) by using some generalized system that overlooks the individual requirements of the WMUs included in them.

 

The bucks are a part of the overall herd. That seems to be a fact that you aren't catching on to. There is nothing about managing a buck that can be adequately done in a more sloppy or slipshod way than managing the rest of the herd. Considerations of habitat, land use, hunting pressure, human interaction conflicts, and all the considerations that were used in establishing WMUs are the same for bucks as they are for managing does. There are no short-cuts simply because of the gender being managed.

[WNYBuckHunter]

Quote: "When did I ever say that an additional layer of deer management would cost less than the previous system?"

 

When on reply #65 you commented about your concern relative to taxes ("So how high do you want your taxes to be?") I took it that you were implying that adding on this overlay of zones somehow would be beneficial to the taxation. Frankly, in answer to your question, I want the taxes to stay the same in terms of not "reinventing the wheel" through duplicate zoning.

 

Quote: "This whole thread has been about the new buck management program and map, we arent talking population management, doe management, DMP allocation or anything like that."

 

And no one is talking about any changes to whole herd management. Because you have selective comprehension or are not reading replies you are failing to understand that I am discussing the dilution of the buck management by using huge zones instead of the existing, fairly well thought out WMUs. I don't recall ever talking about DMPs or doe management.

 

Quote: "What I said is that Doc has been insinuating that current WMUs are somehow going to go away, and that instead of focusing on herd management on a smaller, more precise scale, the DEC is looking to broaden its scope."

 

If I were of a mind to waste my time going back to the specific quote, I could show you where I specifically said that WMUs were not going away and that they (DEC) are adding an overlay on top of the existing WMU system.

 

 

And also, I have said that their buck management is indeed "looking to broaden its scope" (or more accurately diluting their focus) by using some generalized system that overlooks the individual requirements of the WMUs included in them.

 

 

The bucks are a part of the overall herd. That seems to be a fact that you aren't catching on to. There is nothing about managing a buck that can be adequately done in a more sloppy or slipshod way than managing the rest of the herd. Considerations of habitat, land use, hunting pressure, human interaction conflicts, and all the considerations that were used in establishing WMUs are the same for bucks as they are for managing does. There are no short-cuts simply because of the gender being managed.

 

How about you stop cherry picking my comments and respond to an idea as a whole? I was commenting on your assertion that the DEC should be doing deer management right or not at all. I was stating that proper management would be too expensive for the DEC to take on, so that the plan they are laying out is the way they will go. That is, unless you were good with even higher taxes. I never said there would be any cost savings vs what has been in place, I was saying it will be less expensive to do it the way they are vs on more of a micromanagement level.

 

 

 

Posted 28 July 2015 - 06:36 AM

dbHunterNY, on 27 Jul 2015 - 2:22 PM, said:

less areas means fewer decisions, less work, and less budget costs I'd imagine.

And less effectiveness and accuracy. Why bother with the activity at all if you're not concerned with it accomplishing exactly what you're trying to accomplish. The old adage still applies, "a job worth doing is worth doing right".

 

 

 

Posted 28 July 2015 - 07:28 AM

Doc, on 28 Jul 2015 - 06:36 AM, said:

And less effectiveness and accuracy. Why bother with the activity at all if you're not concerned with it accomplishing exactly what you're trying to accomplish. The old adage still applies, "a job worth doing is worth doing right".

 

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.

 

 

 

I already showed the quote where you stated your concern about WMUs, but here it is again, post 77...

 

Posted 28 July 2015 - 05:09 PM

WNYBuckHunter, on 28 Jul 2015 - 07:28 AM, said:

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)?

 

 

Im done beating this to death, its a waste of my time. If you cant plainly see what the conversation entailed, I dont know what to tell you.

 

As far as managing bucks VS does, as I have already stated, I know the correlation between the two and how it effects the overall of the herd, but managing for age (yearling buck protection) and managing for numbers (doe permits) are different and can be approached in different manors (ie different zone sizes, habitat types, etc).

[Doc]

How about you stop cherry picking my comments and respond to an idea as a whole?

 

How about I just accurately answer your question (which I did) instead of repeating the whole thread. Who the hell wants to look at all of that crap twice?

[WNYBuckHunter]

Not me, thats why Im done lol