Clarification of the Draft Deer Management Plan from the DEC

Let's not overthink this or read something into the plan that isn't there.....

Archery hunters are free to take either a buck or doe.....that philosophy comes into play every season when bowhunters either take a doe early before the buck action heats up, or choose not to take an antlerless deer, sometimes for the entire season

It's the antlerless harvest that controls the size of the deer herd

DEC wants better control in managing deer numbers, which is already a huge challenge given the amount of posted land in the state

Hence the decision to use additional DMPs instead of bow-muzz tags, since the bow-muzz tags don't guarantee anything in the way in which a hunter selects which deer to harvest.....

No, I knew what you said, I was just asking the question, what do you think should be done to up the effectiveness of hunting season without having to selectively expand gun seasons in areas that need the herd thinned out.

Personally, I do not want gun seasons expanded. As I have said before, I think they should be shortened or reconfigured to take some of the pressure off of the deer. I believe that could make the season more effective, because deer wouldnt be going into lock down mode for so long. The added bonus is that hunter satisfaction would possibly go up because more people are seeing more deer as a result of less pressure. Just an idea though. I kind of wanted to hear what ideas might be floating around in your mind about it.

If the hunter numbers continue to drop and eventually reach the point where the DEC really does have an inability to correct over-populations, then I have to say that they will have no options other than replacing chunks of bow seasons and perhaps even muzzleloading seasons with more regular gun time. That's my honest opinion. I believe that that will happen long after you and I are gone. But if hunter numbers continue to decline or if certain mis-ques by the DEC regarding excessive regulations begin an even more serious decline in hunters it may happen even faster than we could imagine. I also believe that it will come in incremental steps with the introduction other weapons into bow seasons trying to make bow season more productive. Crossbows followed by muzzleloaders and eventually other firearms. Given their obvious attitude toward bowseason as a wasted harvesting opportunity, I believe that these changes are quite predictable

However, let me point out that there is absolutely no evidence that I have seen where there is a general inability to stay ahead of over-population other than special unique areas of urban or suburban deer levels. I have yet to see any areas in NY where the numbers look like an out-of control situation that multiple permits wouldn't handle. I've seen it in 8N where the herd size was ridiculously high, and the issuance of even more permits quite quickly caused them to over-shoot their targets to the point where recently they had to reduce permits here.

So my belief is that they are looking far into the future and are setting things up for forcasted hunter declines. They know that even though there is a fairly active archery lobby, bow hunters are still the easiest target to attack without unleashing a firestorm of protest. It is generally recognized that bowhunters cannot or will not organize themselves to the point where they can pose any serious political problem. So obviously this is a timeslot that can be quietly tampered with and changed up to be turned into a more effective deer harvesting time. It's all just a matter of time. How much time? ...... I wouldn't even hazard a guess. Maybe a lot less than we think.

While I agree with most of this, I dont see the proposed changes as anything other than what they are at this point. Very limited use of MLs in area where they need population control, and the current set of seasons isnt having enough of an impact.

Still waiting to hear your opinion on what should be done. 

In answer to your question, I think I have already said that the DEC is doing what they must do. Given the hunter decline phenomenon, they have no choice but to invade bow seasons with more efficient weapons. It's up to bowhunters to fight that if they want to preserve any practical aspects of pure bowhunting. With that battle being fought, hopefully compromises will occur that satisfy both sides as much as can be expected. I'm not sure just who we expect to carry the bowhunter part of the battle seeing as to how so many bowhunters refuse to organize. But that's another topic.

I think I probably view the proposed muzzleloader seasons as being more of an impact than many others do simply because of my location. If there is any place in the state that the early muzzleloader season will be almost permanently installed, it is 8N .... lol. However, any WMU can eventually be impacted by the possibility at any time so I would guess that no bowhunter anywhere should ignore that as a real event. I might add that any limitations such as "doe only" can be changed at the mere stroke of a pen so I don't take a whole lot of solice in that rule. If you think back to what bow season was when it first started vs. what it is today you can readily see that rules and regulations are temporary at best.

Also the early youth gun season is proposed as statewide as I understand it. The impacts of that are still only theoretical, but it does show the DEC's readiness to choose the one season where such an event would have the biggest impact on bowhunting. Incidentally, the choice for the location of that special season further convinces me that bowseason is looked upon as being sacrificial by the DEC.

I believe that these proposed changes are simply incremental steps that even by themselves have some significant impacts on bowhunting but even worse it establishes the precedent of adding deer hunting gun seasons right in the middle of a bowseason. Once that is accepted, there is no limit after that. In my last reply above, I have listed the reasons why I believe that these things are not happening simply because of coincidence or oversight.

No, I knew what you said, I was just asking the question, what do you think should be done to up the effectiveness of hunting season without having to selectively expand gun seasons in areas that need the herd thinned out.

Personally, I do not want gun seasons expanded. As I have said before, I think they should be shortened or reconfigured to take some of the pressure off of the deer. I believe that could make the season more effective, because deer wouldnt be going into lock down mode for so long. The added bonus is that hunter satisfaction would possibly go up because more people are seeing more deer as a result of less pressure. Just an idea though. I kind of wanted to hear what ideas might be floating around in your mind about it.

If the hunter numbers continue to drop and eventually reach the point where the DEC really does have an inability to correct over-populations, then I have to say that they will have no options other than replacing chunks of bow seasons and perhaps even muzzleloading seasons with more regular gun time. That's my honest opinion. I believe that that will happen long after you and I are gone. But if hunter numbers continue to decline or if certain mis-ques by the DEC regarding excessive regulations begin an even more serious decline in hunters it may happen even faster than we could imagine. I also believe that it will come in incremental steps with the introduction other weapons into bow seasons trying to make bow season more productive. Crossbows followed by muzzleloaders and eventually other firearms. Given their obvious attitude toward bowseason as a wasted harvesting opportunity, I believe that these changes are quite predictable

However, let me point out that there is absolutely no evidence that I have seen where there is a general inability to stay ahead of over-population other than special unique areas of urban or suburban deer levels. I have yet to see any areas in NY where the numbers look like an out-of control situation that multiple permits wouldn't handle. I've seen it in 8N where the herd size was ridiculously high, and the issuance of even more permits quite quickly caused them to over-shoot their targets to the point where recently they had to reduce permits here.

So my belief is that they are looking far into the future and are setting things up for forcasted hunter declines. They know that even though there is a fairly active archery lobby, bow hunters are still the easiest target to attack without unleashing a firestorm of protest. It is generally recognized that bowhunters cannot or will not organize themselves to the point where they can pose any serious political problem. So obviously this is a timeslot that can be quietly tampered with and changed up to be turned into a more effective deer harvesting time. It's all just a matter of time. How much time? ...... I wouldn't even hazard a guess. Maybe a lot less than we think.

While I agree with most of this, I dont see the proposed changes as anything other than what they are at this point. Very limited use of MLs in area where they need population control, and the current set of seasons isnt having enough of an impact.

Still waiting to hear your opinion on what should be done. 

In answer to your question, I think I have already said that the DEC is doing what they must do. Given the hunter decline phenomenon, they have no choice but to invade bow seasons with more efficient weapons. It's up to bowhunters to fight that if they want to preserve any practical aspects of pure bowhunting. With that battle being fought, hopefully compromises will occur that satisfy both sides as much as can be expected. I'm not sure just who we expect to carry the bowhunter part of the battle seeing as to how so many bowhunters refuse to organize. But that's another topic.

I think I probably view the proposed muzzleloader seasons as being more of an impact than many others do simply because of my location. If there is any place in the state that the early muzzleloader season will be almost permanently installed, it is 8N .... lol. However, any WMU can eventually be impacted by the possibility at any time so I would guess that no bowhunter anywhere should ignore that as a real event. I might add that any limitations such as "doe only" can be changed at the mere stroke of a pen so I don't take a whole lot of solice in that rule. If you think back to what bow season was when it first started vs. what it is today you can readily see that rules and regulations are temporary at best.

Also the early youth gun season is proposed as statewide as I understand it. The impacts of that are still only theoretical, but it does show the DEC's readiness to choose the one season where such an event would have the biggest impact on bowhunting. Incidentally, the choice for the location of that special season further convinces me that bowseason is looked upon as being sacrificial by the DEC.

I believe that these proposed changes are simply incremental steps that even by themselves have some significant impacts on bowhunting but even worse it establishes the precedent of adding deer hunting gun seasons right in the middle of a bowseason. Once that is accepted, there is no limit after that. In my last reply above, I have listed the reasons why I believe that these things are not happening simply because of coincidence or oversight.

once again the self proclaimed Docteur has taken over a thread with endless pages of dribble and a whirlwind of BS without even so much as saying a word that means a damn thing, the ole coot is truly amazing..does anyone here actually read any of this crap anymore? ???

Why Is everyone having so much trouble reading.

Early ml is only in a few areas. It does not even apply to most of the state so stop sweating it. And someone mentioned that the dec is setting up for a longer reg season down the road. That will never happen. Trust me.

Let's not overthink this or read something into the plan that isn't there.....

Archery hunters are free to take either a buck or doe.....that philosophy comes into play every season when bowhunters either take a doe early before the buck action heats up, or choose not to take an antlerless deer, sometimes for the entire season

It's the antlerless harvest that controls the size of the deer herd

DEC wants better control in managing deer numbers, which is already a huge challenge given the amount of posted land in the state

Hence the decision to use additional DMPs instead of bow-muzz tags, since the bow-muzz tags don't guarantee anything in the way in which a hunter selects which deer to harvest.....

Very good points

Agree Skully.....

I will be stunned when and if DEC utilizes the early muzz season......I think they will go out of their way to avoid doing so...

And as far as a long firearms season, where would DEC go with it? Little wiggle room there now....

Why Is everyone having so much trouble reading.

Early ml is only in a few areas. It does not even apply to most of the state so stop sweating it. And someone mentioned that the dec is setting up for a longer reg season down the road. That will never happen. Trust me.

I agree. I firmly believe that it will be used as a temporary fix to bring the herd in line when it needs to be, in the areas it needs to be used. Once crossbows are in the mix, bow season will become effective enough for it to do what they want. It will not be nearly as effective as gun season, but certainly more so than it is now.

Why Is everyone having so much trouble reading.

Early ml is only in a few areas. It does not even apply to most of the state so stop sweating it. And someone mentioned that the dec is setting up for a longer reg season down the road. That will never happen. Trust me.

I am surprised that so many people have so much "trust" in a government agency that has not really shown itself to be all that adept at doing their job in the past. And that phrase "Trust me" seems to have special significance here and probably should have been added on at the end of the entire proposal ..... lol. It is nice to have blind optomism I guess, but when it comes to the government, I tend to lean in the opposite direction and assume the worst until they can prove to my satisfaction that they really do know what they're doing.

As far as the attitude "Don't sweat it ..... that is somebody else's problem", well think about that a bit and I'm pretty sure you will see what's wrong with that line of thought.....

As others, I would like to be able to assume that all the gaping loop-holes in this proposal will be filled in a way that ends well. But I always get that nagging feeling that just maybe they cannot be trusted to always do the right or even logical thing.

Blah...blah....blah....blah

Hi Mr. Personality. Good to see they let you out again .... or did you escape. ;D

Let's not overthink this or read something into the plan that isn't there.....

Archery hunters are free to take either a buck or doe.....that philosophy comes into play every season when bowhunters either take a doe early before the buck action heats up, or choose not to take an antlerless deer, sometimes for the entire season

It's the antlerless harvest that controls the size of the deer herd

DEC wants better control in managing deer numbers, which is already a huge challenge given the amount of posted land in the state

Hence the decision to use additional DMPs instead of bow-muzz tags, since the bow-muzz tags don't guarantee anything in the way in which a hunter selects which deer to harvest.....

I've been trying to figure out how removing the current automatic antlerless tags from bowhunters and muzzleloaders and making these tags subject to a lottery is really going to help control herds on posted land or anywhere else. Just the fact that it is a lottery would seem to indicate that some of those hunters will be denied an antlerless tag. So if archers and ML hunters are already inefficient at removing does, how are you going to make them more efficient by putting the element of chance into antlerless tags? I guess I don't follow that one.

Working on the assumption that applying for an antlerless tag would indicate interest in shooting an antlerless deer... automatically giving out a choice between either buck or doe does not make that assumption.. meaning there is a greater chance that a hunter that is actively looking for a permit and gets one will try to take an antlerless deer... sounds like simple logic to me. I am one of those that only use my DMP for antlerless deer and always save Bow/Mz for bucks...

Working on the assumption that applying for an antlerless tag would indicate interest in shooting an antlerless deer... automatically giving out a choice between either buck or doe does not make that assumption.. meaning there is a greater chance that a hunter that is actively looking for a permit and gets one will try to take an antlerless deer... sounds like simple logic to me. I am one of those that only use my DMP for antlerless deer and always save Bow/Mz for bucks...

So if I take away all antlerless tags from a bowhunters and ML hunters that they currently get automatically, and make them instead apply for a chance at getting one (meaning some will not), I am somehow improving the doe take? And somehow forcing them into a lottery proves something about their intent to use them, which helps the doe harvest how??? Doesn't make a bit of sense to me. There has to be something I'm not catching on to here.

see what happens with assumptions for I know many hunters that don't shoot and do not allow doe hunting on their lands....even though they hunt....because they see a over issuance of DMP and damage permits...yet they all go after the 3-4 doe tags in many years ....they can get...to take them out of the mix( second chance tags added there)....before you think it...I took only doe last year ..2

Working on the assumption that applying for an antlerless tag would indicate interest in shooting an antlerless deer... automatically giving out a choice between either buck or doe does not make that assumption.. meaning there is a greater chance that a hunter that is actively looking for a permit and gets one will try to take an antlerless deer... sounds like simple logic to me. I am one of those that only use my DMP for antlerless deer and always save Bow/Mz for bucks...

So if I take away all antlerless tags from a bowhunters and ML hunters that they currently get automatically, and make them instead apply for a chance at getting one (meaning some will not), I am somehow improving the doe take? And somehow forcing them into a lottery proves something about their intent to use them, which helps the doe harvest how??? Doesn't make a bit of sense to me. There has to be something I'm not catching on to here.

You are improving control over the doe take zone by zone. Whats so hard for everyone to understand?

see what happens with assumptions for I know many hunters that don't shoot and do not allow doe hunting on their lands....even though they hunt....because they see a over issuance of DMP and damage permits...yet they all go after the 3-4 doe tags in many years ....they can get...to take them out of the mix( second chance tags added there)....before you think it...I took only doe last year ..2

Those people are part of the problem, and why DEC issues many many more permits than they need does taken. The DEC looks at the percentages of DMPs given vs filled and bases their number of DMPs issued off of that along with their estimations of herd size. In other words, they figure it into the mix, so those people are just wasting their time and money anyway.

You are improving control over the doe take zone by zone. Whats so hard for everyone to understand?

I see that so-called "improved control" only working in one direction, that direction being in rebuilding a decimated herd. Yes, the DMP system can shut down doe harvests. However, as far as the other, more frequent, direction of removing population (which is mostly what they have historically been trying to do), I do have difficulty understanding how taking away automatic issuance of antlerless tags from bowhunters and ML hunters and maybe returning tags back to them via a game of chance is really going to accomplish that. Very likely they will further discourage bowhunter and ML participation in doe harvests by charging an application fee for the permit lottery as well.

So, on one hand we are whining about how poor the doe harvest rate is and on the other we are trying to throw all kinds of roadblocks in front of those harvests. And you're trying to tell me that makes sense?

What is perfectly clear is that this is just as someone else commented .... it has nothing to do with better management, but has everything to do with selling antlerless tags. It suddenly occurred to them that they have all these people with free antlerless tags that they could be making some cash off of.

I think that the problem in many areas is over harvest. Alot of the state doesnt have the over abundance of deer that we have in the finger lakes.

Now as far a enticing more people to shoot does in areas that need it, lets say you are in your stand, you have an either sex tag and a nice buck (3 year old 8 point) steps out with a doe (3 year old, good size). Which one are most hunters going to shoot? The buck of course. Now if they only have a DMP, they shoot the doe.

Like Ive said before, its not perfect, but better control over number of DMPs for each zone is their intended purpose for changing the system.

I wonder....if they are trying to avoid a situation like what happened in Wisconsin....that may....down the road land them right in it.......I hope not

Still...MANDATORY STATE WIDE ORANGE FOR GUNNERS......

So if I take away all antlerless tags from a bowhunters and ML hunters that they currently get automatically, and make them instead apply for a chance at getting one (meaning some will not), I am somehow improving the doe take? And somehow forcing them into a lottery proves something about their intent to use them, which helps the doe harvest how??? Doesn't make a bit of sense to me. There has to be something I'm not catching on to here.

I think it allows them to focus that tag on the doe take. I have never used my either sex tag on a doe and the antlerless one I get is used (if lucky enough) in my area. It just so happens that the area I mainly hunt with a bow is one of those that they give them away by the truckload. So if they take those two tags and make them DMPs for me they are focusing my effort on two does rather than a buck and doe. I don't see this affecting me in my areas down south but it will for my early ML hunting up north. I only get up on the weekend and I usually am able to take a doe up there. in a lottery situation I will not apply for the area becasue my season there is only two days.

Do you think this means that many of the areas that have not been open to doe tags will be? 5H doesn't have tags (NZ) will they issue some if this proposal goes in to effect? If they base the take on previous harvests and I am no longer going there...does that make it more likely for the residents of the area?

I can understand their desire to be able to more closely control take but I am not sure it has been totally thought out. And I am sure many of you will be asking me why I would be surprised at something being implemented by the govt with out thinking it through...lol

I think that the problem in many areas is over harvest. Alot of the state doesnt have the over abundance of deer that we have in the finger lakes.

Now as far a enticing more people to shoot does in areas that need it, lets say you are in your stand, you have an either sex tag and a nice buck (3 year old 8 point) steps out with a doe (3 year old, good size). Which one are most hunters going to shoot? The buck of course. Now if they only have a DMP, they shoot the doe.

Like Ive said before, its not perfect, but better control over number of DMPs for each zone is their intended purpose for changing the system.

I am one of those that typically doesn't take does with my bow. No grand holier than thou....just like bow hunting for the bucks then before they are scattered to hell and gone by the rut and gun season. If I was in the woods with a (1 buck tag to use any season and DMPs) it probably wouldn't change my position. right up to the point that I take that buck. then I am hunting for does. I am not sure how this new system differs from what is here now.....(In my area)  becasue of the liberal DMPs numbers.

Good point brought up...I now will not be hunting during bow season at camp....8x is a low # area and always hard getting doe tags for...if I were to use my doe tag down there during bow I wouldn't have a tag to hunt during gun...we don't see alot of buck down there so I always hunt home for buck opening week...the guys can have camp that week But my Dad in-law and I hunt at camp when the guys have to go back to work...so he has someone there....

Now as far a enticing more people to shoot does in areas that need it, lets say you are in your stand, you have an either sex tag and a nice buck (3 year old 8 point) steps out with a doe (3 year old, good size). Which one are most hunters going to shoot? The buck of course. Now if they only have a DMP, they shoot the doe.

Last time I looked, there were way more WMUs where permits are issued than not which indicates that they are mostly engaged in shrinking or holding steady deer populations. Yes there are some areas where they are trying to rebuild the herd but they are generally few and are the exceptions rather than the rule.

Now, relative to this idea of increased "control", per the proposed changes, if I purchase my regular bow license, I would assume that that would come with a buck tag only. Also, as proposed, I would not have a legal right to shoot that doe if I didn't put in for the DMP, or if I did apply for it and because of the luck of the lottery was denied. In effect we have changed from a system where I definitely would have the ability to harvest that doe to one where I can't unless I successfully get selected for a permit. Am I mistaken about anything so far? 

If I have all that right so far, it doesn't matter if the buck and doe were standing side by side or the doe came out by herself, in neither case would I have the legal right to harvest that doe.... period. The way it is currently, if that doe comes down the trail I can and would take her. So if the DEC wants that doe taken, they have potentially lost the ability to allow me to do that with this proposal. So in effect they have lost some level of control on the reduction side of the equation because they have taken some of the bowhunters and muzzleloader hunters out of the doe-harvesting pool. So yes, if they want to build up the herd, they have an ideal tool for shutting down the doe harvest. For population reduction however, they would have just shot themselves in the foot. Is that better control? Probably not when you consider that herd reduction is primarily what they are faced with over most of the state each year.

I would think that in most areas where DMPs are already given out most people if not all would be issued a dmp. The control would be the fact that it has to be used in that DMP not state wide. What they could do is issue a anterless tag to everyone like they do know when you buy a license but it has to be for a a select dmp

I think that the problem in many areas is over harvest. Alot of the state doesnt have the over abundance of deer that we have in the finger lakes.

Now as far a enticing more people to shoot does in areas that need it, lets say you are in your stand, you have an either sex tag and a nice buck (3 year old 8 point) steps out with a doe (3 year old, good size). Which one are most hunters going to shoot? The buck of course. Now if they only have a DMP, they shoot the doe.

Like Ive said before, its not perfect, but better control over number of DMPs for each zone is their intended purpose for changing the system.

I am one of those that typically doesn't take does with my bow. No grand holier than thou....just like bow hunting for the bucks then before they are scattered to hell and gone by the rut and gun season. If I was in the woods with a (1 buck tag to use any season and DMPs) it probably wouldn't change my position. right up to the point that I take that buck. then I am hunting for does. I am not sure how this new system differs from what is here now.....(In my area)  becasue of the liberal DMPs numbers.

Exactly, for us in the high DMP areas it wont make much difference, but in the zones where they want to limit doe take, getting rid of the either sex tag is the best way to get as good a grip on it as they can.

I havent shot a doe in the last couple with my bow either, but only because I was concentrating on bucks. This year, the first doe that walks by is getting a carbon and steel injection. 

I think that the problem in many areas is over harvest. Alot of the state doesnt have the over abundance of deer that we have in the finger lakes.

Now as far a enticing more people to shoot does in areas that need it, lets say you are in your stand, you have an either sex tag and a nice buck (3 year old 8 point) steps out with a doe (3 year old, good size). Which one are most hunters going to shoot? The buck of course. Now if they only have a DMP, they shoot the doe.

Like Ive said before, its not perfect, but better control over number of DMPs for each zone is their intended purpose for changing the system.

That reply alone is the best point I have read on why they are proposing to take the either sex tag away.  That never even crossed my mind.  Not only would taking that tag away let that 8pt walk if your A/M buck tag is filled it also let that buck get bigger if it survived gun season as well.  So the scenario of the DEC fullfilling hunters request of a mature buck herd and them wanting better management of doe harvest gets them both in one deal.  Great point!