Deer management draft proposal recently released by the DEC.

good point.

Antler restrictions in the 4's (more zones) is good.  2012 has an early muzzleloader in 2012,.... awesome.

Not everywhere on the early ML, just locations that need more herd control.

That's another thing that I think is a bit weird. A season that may or may not be there when you want to use it. There is no way of planning for using that season since no one knows until kind of late in the year whether it will be offered or not. Trying to guess the possibilities on antlerless permits is always a pain, but even if you don't get a permit, you can still hunt for a buck. But here is a whole proposed season that may simply vanish at the last minute because of a change in herd size estimate. I guess if you are planning a vacation for that ML season, you had better have some alternative plans .... lol. Pack your bow just in case (If you have one ....lol)

I would just figure it to be bow season, unless they add the ML in there that year. No need to plan your vacation around what weapon you are going to use unless you want to hunt a specific season.

This proposal has too many questions. We need to be united as hunters and voice our disapproval to the DEC. They cant answer any questions about it because their studies on the plan will not be done until after the plan has been implemented for 5 years! What kind of sense does that make?

Personally, Im not really against it. The AR part doesnt affect me, and I have no opinion on it, as I do not hunt the areas it is proposed for, and I dont know what the herd is like there. That leaves me affected by 5 main things. One being crossbows expanded into bow season, which I agree with. Two is the restructuring of DMPs, and I agree that better control of DMPs is most likely going to be a move toward better herd management. Three is the youth weekend, and I am for it. Fourth is the likelyhood that the area I mostly hunt will be one that gets the early ML season. I could do without that, but the 5th thing is an Oct 1 bow opener, which I feel is great, so it pretty much balances out my feeling on the early ML.

This proposal has too many questions. We need to be united as hunters and voice our disapproval to the DEC. They cant answer any questions about it because their studies on the plan will not be done until after the plan has been implemented for 5 years! What kind of sense does that make?

Personally, Im not really against it. The AR part doesnt affect me, and I have no opinion on it, as I do not hunt the areas it is proposed for, and I dont know what the herd is like there. That leaves me affected by 5 main things. One being crossbows expanded into bow season, which I agree with. Two is the restructuring of DMPs, and I agree that better control of DMPs is most likely going to be a move toward better herd management. Three is the youth weekend, and I am for it. Fourth is the likelyhood that the area I mostly hunt will be one that gets the early ML season. I could do without that, but the 5th thing is an Oct 1 bow opener, which I feel is great, so it pretty much balances out my feeling on the early ML.

Buck , the restructuring of the DMP's they have had DMP forever and they still can't get it right. What makes you think they will have a handle on it this time around? MY problem is they should have introduced mandatory reporting that would have been a step in the right direction. Only my humble opinion.

Dave

This proposal has too many questions. We need to be united as hunters and voice our disapproval to the DEC. They cant answer any questions about it because their studies on the plan will not be done until after the plan has been implemented for 5 years! What kind of sense does that make?

Personally, Im not really against it. The AR part doesnt affect me, and I have no opinion on it, as I do not hunt the areas it is proposed for, and I dont know what the herd is like there. That leaves me affected by 5 main things. One being crossbows expanded into bow season, which I agree with. Two is the restructuring of DMPs, and I agree that better control of DMPs is most likely going to be a move toward better herd management. Three is the youth weekend, and I am for it. Fourth is the likelyhood that the area I mostly hunt will be one that gets the early ML season. I could do without that, but the 5th thing is an Oct 1 bow opener, which I feel is great, so it pretty much balances out my feeling on the early ML.

Buck , the restructuring of the DMP's they have had DMP forever and they still can't get it right. What makes you think they will have a handle on it this time around? MY problem is they should have introduced mandatory reporting that would have been a step in the right direction. Only my humble opinion.

Dave

Ive long wondered why I have to go through a lottery to get doe tags when they just hand me one with my bow/ml tag. It just didnt make sense to me. The new plan with DMPs make sense to me and IMO is a step in the direction toward better herd managament. I agree on the mandatory reporting, but how would that help with proper allocation of DMPs? They still wouldnt have control over how many does are shot in a particular zone, when anyone that holds an either sex tag can go there and shoot a doe.

This proposal has too many questions. We need to be united as hunters and voice our disapproval to the DEC. They cant answer any questions about it because their studies on the plan will not be done until after the plan has been implemented for 5 years! What kind of sense does that make?

Personally, Im not really against it. The AR part doesnt affect me, and I have no opinion on it, as I do not hunt the areas it is proposed for, and I dont know what the herd is like there. That leaves me affected by 5 main things. One being crossbows expanded into bow season, which I agree with. Two is the restructuring of DMPs, and I agree that better control of DMPs is most likely going to be a move toward better herd management. Three is the youth weekend, and I am for it. Fourth is the likelyhood that the area I mostly hunt will be one that gets the early ML season. I could do without that, but the 5th thing is an Oct 1 bow opener, which I feel is great, so it pretty much balances out my feeling on the early ML.

Buck , the restructuring of the DMP's they have had DMP forever and they still can't get it right. What makes you think they will have a handle on it this time around? MY problem is they should have introduced mandatory reporting that would have been a step in the right direction. Only my humble opinion.

Dave

Ive long wondered why I have to go through a lottery to get doe tags when they just hand me one with my bow/ml tag. It just didnt make sense to me. The new plan with DMPs make sense to me and IMO is a step in the direction toward better herd managament. I agree on the mandatory reporting, but how would that help with proper allocation of DMPs? They still wouldnt have control over how many does are shot in a particular zone, when anyone that holds an either sex tag can go there and shoot a doe.

Buck, they would as long as they report when and where the deer was taken. Then next year they can make adjustments to how many DMP to issue in that area. Lets say they found that too many doe were taken by bow in a particular DMU then they would adjust the DMP to compensate for that and issue DMP for bow only like we do for gun season.

Dave

Here are some issues to keep in mind when considering this 5 year plan. The DEC currently has no answers for these issues:

1 – Many studies are listed, yet, with this proposal being a 5-year plan, it  appears that the research goals for studies will spread far beyond the 5-year  nature of this plan. In order to improve this I would recommend we prioritize  the studies and focus on a couple specific initiatives, rather than a wide  array. Focused study of ecological dynamics and deer, along with study of  additional population estimating tools would be my recommendation to focus upon.  Eliminate the balance from the proposal to demonstrate a laser focus in  improving the DEC’s capabilities to better manage deer.

2 – Additional  disease monitoring and existing disease monitoring – it is difficult to tell  what is ongoing and what is new. With a reality of nature being illness among  all living creatures, it is unclear whether any benefits will be delivered to  the herd or hunters/ people of NYS. Our existing disease monitoring and  containment strategy appears more than adequate, as evidenced by the successful  CWD containment. I do not believe the costs that would be associated with this  part of the proposal can be justified with any results that are any better than  what we have now.

3 – Land access outreach using Cornell University/  Cooperative Extensions, without inclusion of Fish and Wildlife Management Board  appears hypocritical. Two years ago the DEC eliminated the budget for this  board, one created under the Fish and Wildlife Management Act, due to shortfalls  in the Conservation Fund. The proposal to use Cornell, while not restoring FWMB  budget, appears completely wrong in my eyes. If the DEC has the money to pay  Cornell for such services, the DEC has more than enough money to restore the  FWMB budget. Any deer management proposal MUST INCLUDE FULL RESTORATION OF FWMB  BUDGET, or eliminate Cornell from this task, as land access is a primary duty of  FWMB.

4 – Although I support the move to manage antlerless deer harvest  using DMP, my support ends with the elimination of deer of either sex tag for  early archery season. Although archers and ML hunters typically take similar  numbers of antlerless deer, a primary justification for eliminating deer of  either sex tag for both groups, the time afield/ season length differences  appear to not be considered in this rationale. Since this move appears to be  more aimed at DMP issuance “fairness” (if 100% DMP for antlerless, more DMP can  be issued in LOW DMP areas), a solid compromise would be to maintain deer of  either sex for early archery only, and move to DMP for ML/ extended season. It  is difficult to believe that an increase in DMP would occur in low DMP areas  with the removal of deer of either sex for archery/ ML. If we are to rebuild the  herd, I would think permit issuance would still be low. By removing the ML  antlerless harvest on a statewide tag, the DEC will still be able to issue more  DMP in these areas, while maintaining the understanding of the differences on  the ground with archery hunting, coupled with maintaining a very good reason for  hunters to spend the additional time and money on the archery privilege. Please  remove the loss of deer of either sex from early archery only. The balance of  the shift in tagging rules are good.

5 – How will Lifetime License  holders (those hunters who purchased a lifetime license based on the current  program structure), be addressed to assure their spend does not appear to be  treated as taking the money and running? Will Lifetime license holders be  grandfathered into the existing tag structure? Since loss of deer of either sex  for both archery and ML lifetime license holders would effectively appear as  eliminating a reason for purchase of the lifetime license, I believe much work  needs to be done, and this facet, especially considering the 73,000+ lifetime  licenses purchased in 2008/ 2009, should be incorporated and clear before any  plan is implemented.

6 – With apparent concerns for harvest during early  archery, I have to question the wisdom of expanding the early archery season.  The longer the season, the more deer are harvested. Seems like a contradiction  within this plan.

7 – Additional issues with expanding early archery  season also deals with consistent big game hunting regulations for bear. Since  this plan mentions nothing about bear, and considering the season structure in  NYS is more reflective of a big game season, rather than deer season and bear  season, I oppose any structural changes to any big game season. Until a bear  management plan is completed, as to incorporate the entire big game plan into a  cohesive, clear program, no changes to the season structure should occur. 

8 – Youth hunt, although a great effort founded in super intentions,  creates many areas of confusion and conflict. For starters, will the  introduction of firearms hunting in early archery predicate the need for all  hunters to wear safety orange? This is a condition that does not currently  exist, yet would create an area of concern with introduction of firearms in  early archery season, unnecessarily.

9 – Also during the youth hunt  questions arise with whether youth will be able to also harvest bear. Since a  comprehensive big game plan relating to season structure is not done, I would  oppose any changes until a full big game plan is completed.

10 – Early ML  season which is proposed is very unclear, as to its structure. With the recent  information released concerning this part of the proposal now indicating that it  may not be done at all, one has to wonder why this component, which is “option  3” in improving antlerless management in high deer density areas, is even  proposed in this 5-year plan. Since this represents no real additional  opportunity for the majority of hunters, while now appearing to be a season or  management tool that will not be embraced within the 5-year window of this plan,  this element should be removed until such time as we determine option one (bonus  DMP) and two (antlerless only days during bow) prove ineffective. It appears  this season falls outside of the 5-year plan.

11 – Both youth and early  ML seasons as proposed also increase potential jeopardy for hunters. Early  archery runs concurrent (as proposed), and considering the rule which states one  cannot be afield during early/ special archery season bow while hunting with  someone who has a firearm in their possession afield. This condition creates  confusion to hunters and sets up additional fine opportunities, especially those  who may believe they can take their youth afield for the special youth firearms  season, and still carry their bow to participate as well. This should be  avoided.

12 - Considering the revelation that mandated Antler Restriction  compromises existing deer population estimating metrics, no expansion of AR  anywhere in NYS until such time as reliable population estimating tools are  developed. If this plan is supposed to improve deer management, a foundation of  this is being able to reliably estimate deer numbers to manage. Expanding AR in  the face of clear understand as to what expansion of AR does to population  estimating, is a contradiction and appears like an irresponsible move.

Wow, ok Ill reply one by one.

1- I think you are misunderstanding what the term "5 Year Plan" means. It means that the DEC would like to implement all of the points within 5 years. It does not mean that each implementation would only last 5 years, and yes, the plan will have a reach much further than 5 years.

2- Successful CWD containment? How many deer were found with CWD, and where were they from? The answer is 2 deer, from the same herd that most likely came into contact with captive deer in the area. They have lifted the "containment area", so there is no need to do anything other than continue testing harvested animals.

3 - I dont have an opinion on that one.

4 - You are contradicting yourself, and Im sorry but your statement doesnt add up. You would continue to allow the uncontrolled harvest of antlerless deer for a month (early bow season), but try to control it for a week (late ml season)? see my last reply to Dave for why I disagree.

5 - When you purchase(d) a lifetime, they did not guarantee any DMPs, they said you wouldnt have to pay for your entry to draw. The people granfathered would get the same tags as someone who pays each year, they just wouldnt have to pay for their DMPs. I havent heard this from DEC, but common sense would say that is the way they would do it.

6 - I dont agree with you on this. They are concerned over antlerless tags given out, and controlling the number of them. That in no way means that bow season shouldnt be expanded.

7 - This is a Deer plan, not a Bear plan. Whats your point?

8 - There is no mandatory orange in gun season now, whats the difference?

9 - Its not a youth bear hunt or big game hunt, its a youth deer hunt. Cant be much more clear than that.

10 - How much more do you want them to explain it? They have been clear that it will ONLY be implemented in areas where normal DMPs are not getting the job done. It would have to be implemented year to year and zone by zone or by specific area within a zone.

11 - Agreed.

12 - No opinion.

This proposal has too many questions. We need to be united as hunters and voice our disapproval to the DEC. They cant answer any questions about it because their studies on the plan will not be done until after the plan has been implemented for 5 years! What kind of sense does that make?

Personally, Im not really against it. The AR part doesnt affect me, and I have no opinion on it, as I do not hunt the areas it is proposed for, and I dont know what the herd is like there. That leaves me affected by 5 main things. One being crossbows expanded into bow season, which I agree with. Two is the restructuring of DMPs, and I agree that better control of DMPs is most likely going to be a move toward better herd management. Three is the youth weekend, and I am for it. Fourth is the likelyhood that the area I mostly hunt will be one that gets the early ML season. I could do without that, but the 5th thing is an Oct 1 bow opener, which I feel is great, so it pretty much balances out my feeling on the early ML.

Buck , the restructuring of the DMP's they have had DMP forever and they still can't get it right. What makes you think they will have a handle on it this time around? MY problem is they should have introduced mandatory reporting that would have been a step in the right direction. Only my humble opinion.

Dave

Ive long wondered why I have to go through a lottery to get doe tags when they just hand me one with my bow/ml tag. It just didnt make sense to me. The new plan with DMPs make sense to me and IMO is a step in the direction toward better herd managament. I agree on the mandatory reporting, but how would that help with proper allocation of DMPs? They still wouldnt have control over how many does are shot in a particular zone, when anyone that holds an either sex tag can go there and shoot a doe.

Buck, they would as long as they report when and where the deer was taken. Then next year they can make adjustments to how many DMP to issue in that area. Lets say they found that too many doe were taken by bow in a particular DMU then they would adjust the DMP to compensate for that and issue DMP for bow only like we do for gun season.

Dave

That still doesnt give them control over the antlerless harvest. Ok, let me explain it better....

You have unit X, which has a carrying capacity of 10,000 deer, the DEC estimates the current herd to be 12,000 deer, with 5000 being bucks. The average harvest rate for bucks in this area is 500. Therefore, they need to reduce the number of deer by 4000 to get it back within carrying capacity (take into account new born deer, survival rates, etc). That means they need 3500 antlerless deer taken. Now, with the possibility of any bow/ml hunter in the state being able to take an antlerless deer in that zone, how can they even guess at how many antlerless deer will be taken and figure out how many other DMPs to give out? Under the new plan, they would know exactly how many DMPs are given out in zone X before any hunting starts each year because they know how many deer they want taken, and an approximate success rate of DMPs.

This of course, would be the most accurate if all kills are reported, so mandatory reporting would make it even better.

4 – Although I support the move to manage antlerless deer harvest  using DMP, my support ends with the elimination of deer of either sex tag for  early archery season. Although archers and ML hunters typically take similar  numbers of antlerless deer, a primary justification for eliminating deer of  either sex tag for both groups, the time afield/ season length differences  appear to not be considered in this rationale. Since this move appears to be  more aimed at DMP issuance “fairness” (if 100% DMP for antlerless, more DMP can  be issued in LOW DMP areas), a solid compromise would be to maintain deer of  either sex for early archery only, and move to DMP for ML/ extended season. It  is difficult to believe that an increase in DMP would occur in low DMP areas  with the removal of deer of either sex for archery/ ML. If we are to rebuild the  herd, I would think permit issuance would still be low. By removing the ML  antlerless harvest on a statewide tag, the DEC will still be able to issue more  DMP in these areas, while maintaining the understanding of the differences on  the ground with archery hunting, coupled with maintaining a very good reason for  hunters to spend the additional time and money on the archery privilege. Please  remove the loss of deer of either sex from early archery only. The balance of  the shift in tagging rules are good.

This point is interesting.  If they remove the either sex tag from archery/ML, why would anyone think that this would reduce the doe take in any area?  I guess it would if they also issued no DMP permits or issued only a few.  But if they issue more DMP's for any given unit because of the removal of the either sex tag, then wouldn't you think that these DMP's will most likely be used by gun hunters who have a better chance of actually filling this permit?  I think in a scenario like that you would have more antlerless deer taken in the long run.  At least currently we can count on archers to NOT fill most of them since their total take of deer is quite low.

This proposal has too many questions. We need to be united as hunters and voice our disapproval to the DEC. They cant answer any questions about it because their studies on the plan will not be done until after the plan has been implemented for 5 years! What kind of sense does that make?

Personally, Im not really against it. The AR part doesnt affect me, and I have no opinion on it, as I do not hunt the areas it is proposed for, and I dont know what the herd is like there. That leaves me affected by 5 main things. One being crossbows expanded into bow season, which I agree with. Two is the restructuring of DMPs, and I agree that better control of DMPs is most likely going to be a move toward better herd management. Three is the youth weekend, and I am for it. Fourth is the likelyhood that the area I mostly hunt will be one that gets the early ML season. I could do without that, but the 5th thing is an Oct 1 bow opener, which I feel is great, so it pretty much balances out my feeling on the early ML.

Buck , the restructuring of the DMP's they have had DMP forever and they still can't get it right. What makes you think they will have a handle on it this time around? MY problem is they should have introduced mandatory reporting that would have been a step in the right direction. Only my humble opinion.

Dave

Ive long wondered why I have to go through a lottery to get doe tags when they just hand me one with my bow/ml tag. It just didnt make sense to me. The new plan with DMPs make sense to me and IMO is a step in the direction toward better herd managament. I agree on the mandatory reporting, but how would that help with proper allocation of DMPs? They still wouldnt have control over how many does are shot in a particular zone, when anyone that holds an either sex tag can go there and shoot a doe.

Buck, they would as long as they report when and where the deer was taken. Then next year they can make adjustments to how many DMP to issue in that area. Lets say they found that too many doe were taken by bow in a particular DMU then they would adjust the DMP to compensate for that and issue DMP for bow only like we do for gun season.

Dave

That still doesnt give them control over the antlerless harvest. Ok, let me explain it better....

You have unit X, which has a carrying capacity of 10,000 deer, the DEC estimates the current herd to be 12,000 deer, with 5000 being bucks. The average harvest rate for bucks in this area is 500. Therefore, they need to reduce the number of deer by 4000 to get it back within carrying capacity (take into account new born deer, survival rates, etc). That means they need 3500 antlerless deer taken. Now, with the possibility of any bow/ml hunter in the state being able to take an antlerless deer in that zone, how can they even guess at how many antlerless deer will be taken and figure out how many other DMPs to give out? Under the new plan, they would know exactly how many DMPs are given out in zone X before any hunting starts each year because they know how many deer they want taken, and an approximate success rate of DMPs.

This of course, would be the most accurate if all kills are reported, so mandatory reporting would make it even better.

So the wild card in all of this is the bow hunter with an either sex tag who could potentially hunt in any DMU he feels like. I get it ,these will not be accounted for in the DMP's in those units. Why can't the DCE use data from previous years and DMU to figure out the take of bow hunters and then come up with a DMP allocation unit bu unit. I think they have all this information in their computers just need to access the data.

Dave

Dave

I think thats what they do now Dave, just a guess though.

I think thats what they do now Dave, just a guess though.

Doe, if they know the numbers than leave the bow tags alone. Adjust the DMP with the gun season.

Dave

Yep, thats what they do now, like Doe said. They will just be able to get a better handle on it with the new system. Thats all that its about.

I think thats what they do now Dave, just a guess though.

Doe, if they know the numbers than leave the bow tags alone. Adjust the DMP with the gun season.

Dave

What happens when people start using more either sex as antlerless in the area? There is no way of controlling the antlerless take without specifying what permits are used where.

What you are describing is how the current system is carried out, and its not working very well. It hgas to change or things are only going to get worse.

I think thats what they do now Dave, just a guess though.

Doe, if they know the numbers than leave the bow tags alone. Adjust the DMP with the gun season.

Dave

What happens when people start using more either sex as antlerless in the area? There is no way of controlling the antlerless take without specifying what permits are used where.

What you are describing is how the current system is carried out, and its not working very well. It hgas to change or things are only going to get worse.

Buck, just another thought what about landowner permits they have to be counted too.

Dave

Im sure they already are.

For the DEC to put together a 5 year plan they must of had a lot  of input from many sources.  I am shocked that mandatory reporting was never considered especially when you want to get a handle on the doe situation and allocation of DMP. Also what about coyote predation? Why don't we have open season on coyote, I am sure they account for a lot of dead deer that go unreported.

Dave

"I am sure they account for a lot of dead deer that go unreported."

That would be a reason for the dec to leave them alone, they are very good at killing fawns and controlling the deer herd.

"I am sure they account for a lot of dead deer that go unreported."

That would be a reason for the dec to leave them alone, they are very good at killing fawns and controlling the deer herd.

Wouldn't it be better for the DEC  and the Hunters to kill both the deer and coyotes. Surprised the DEC is giving the yotes a free pass.

Busy day here on this thread. It's tough to keep up on all the different twists and turns that this thing is going through ..... lol. I came back in and there was something like 3 pages added. :-\

Busy day here on this thread. It's tough to keep up on all the different twists and turns that this thing is going through ..... lol. I came back in and there was something like 3 pages added. :-\

We missed your input Doc.

Dave

For the DEC to put together a 5 year plan they must of had a lot  of input from many sources.  I am shocked that mandatory reporting was never considered especially when you want to get a handle on the doe situation and allocation of DMP. Also what about coyote predation? Why don't we have open season on coyote, I am sure they account for a lot of dead deer that go unreported.

Dave

Reporting is mandatory it's just that most don't do it.. and why would you want to eliminate one species of animal over another?.. What coyotes do is natural for them... they are predators... predation is what they do... it's part of mother natures plan... mother nature doesn't care if we have enough deer for our freezer... any marked decline or increase in deer populations is directly the result of overhunting or under hunting a particular area.

"I am sure they account for a lot of dead deer that go unreported."

That would be a reason for the dec to leave them alone, they are very good at killing fawns and controlling the deer herd.

Wouldn't it be better for the DEC  and the Hunters to kill both the deer and coyotes. Surprised the DEC is giving the yotes a free pass.

Yotes have anything but a free pass.Take a peek at how long the season is, and what you are allowed to use to take them. Its pretty close to an open season as is. Id love them to open them all year though.

Here are some issues to keep in mind when considering this 5 year plan. The DEC currently has no answers for these issues:

1 – Many studies are listed, yet, with this proposal being a 5-year plan, it  appears that the research goals for studies will spread far beyond the 5-year  nature of this plan. In order to improve this I would recommend we prioritize  the studies and focus on a couple specific initiatives, rather than a wide  array. Focused study of ecological dynamics and deer, along with study of  additional population estimating tools would be my recommendation to focus upon.  Eliminate the balance from the proposal to demonstrate a laser focus in  improving the DEC’s capabilities to better manage deer.

2 – Additional  disease monitoring and existing disease monitoring – it is difficult to tell  what is ongoing and what is new. With a reality of nature being illness among  all living creatures, it is unclear whether any benefits will be delivered to  the herd or hunters/ people of NYS. Our existing disease monitoring and  containment strategy appears more than adequate, as evidenced by the successful  CWD containment. I do not believe the costs that would be associated with this  part of the proposal can be justified with any results that are any better than  what we have now.

3 – Land access outreach using Cornell University/  Cooperative Extensions, without inclusion of Fish and Wildlife Management Board  appears hypocritical. Two years ago the DEC eliminated the budget for this  board, one created under the Fish and Wildlife Management Act, due to shortfalls  in the Conservation Fund. The proposal to use Cornell, while not restoring FWMB  budget, appears completely wrong in my eyes. If the DEC has the money to pay  Cornell for such services, the DEC has more than enough money to restore the  FWMB budget. Any deer management proposal MUST INCLUDE FULL RESTORATION OF FWMB  BUDGET, or eliminate Cornell from this task, as land access is a primary duty of  FWMB.

4 – Although I support the move to manage antlerless deer harvest  using DMP, my support ends with the elimination of deer of either sex tag for  early archery season. Although archers and ML hunters typically take similar  numbers of antlerless deer, a primary justification for eliminating deer of  either sex tag for both groups, the time afield/ season length differences  appear to not be considered in this rationale. Since this move appears to be  more aimed at DMP issuance “fairness” (if 100% DMP for antlerless, more DMP can  be issued in LOW DMP areas), a solid compromise would be to maintain deer of  either sex for early archery only, and move to DMP for ML/ extended season. It  is difficult to believe that an increase in DMP would occur in low DMP areas  with the removal of deer of either sex for archery/ ML. If we are to rebuild the  herd, I would think permit issuance would still be low. By removing the ML  antlerless harvest on a statewide tag, the DEC will still be able to issue more  DMP in these areas, while maintaining the understanding of the differences on  the ground with archery hunting, coupled with maintaining a very good reason for  hunters to spend the additional time and money on the archery privilege. Please  remove the loss of deer of either sex from early archery only. The balance of  the shift in tagging rules are good.

5 – How will Lifetime License  holders (those hunters who purchased a lifetime license based on the current  program structure), be addressed to assure their spend does not appear to be  treated as taking the money and running? Will Lifetime license holders be  grandfathered into the existing tag structure? Since loss of deer of either sex  for both archery and ML lifetime license holders would effectively appear as  eliminating a reason for purchase of the lifetime license, I believe much work  needs to be done, and this facet, especially considering the 73,000+ lifetime  licenses purchased in 2008/ 2009, should be incorporated and clear before any  plan is implemented.

6 – With apparent concerns for harvest during early  archery, I have to question the wisdom of expanding the early archery season.  The longer the season, the more deer are harvested. Seems like a contradiction  within this plan.

7 – Additional issues with expanding early archery  season also deals with consistent big game hunting regulations for bear. Since  this plan mentions nothing about bear, and considering the season structure in  NYS is more reflective of a big game season, rather than deer season and bear  season, I oppose any structural changes to any big game season. Until a bear  management plan is completed, as to incorporate the entire big game plan into a  cohesive, clear program, no changes to the season structure should occur. 

8 – Youth hunt, although a great effort founded in super intentions,  creates many areas of confusion and conflict. For starters, will the  introduction of firearms hunting in early archery predicate the need for all  hunters to wear safety orange? This is a condition that does not currently  exist, yet would create an area of concern with introduction of firearms in  early archery season, unnecessarily.

9 – Also during the youth hunt  questions arise with whether youth will be able to also harvest bear. Since a  comprehensive big game plan relating to season structure is not done, I would  oppose any changes until a full big game plan is completed.

10 – Early ML  season which is proposed is very unclear, as to its structure. With the recent  information released concerning this part of the proposal now indicating that it  may not be done at all, one has to wonder why this component, which is “option  3” in improving antlerless management in high deer density areas, is even  proposed in this 5-year plan. Since this represents no real additional  opportunity for the majority of hunters, while now appearing to be a season or  management tool that will not be embraced within the 5-year window of this plan,  this element should be removed until such time as we determine option one (bonus  DMP) and two (antlerless only days during bow) prove ineffective. It appears  this season falls outside of the 5-year plan.

11 – Both youth and early  ML seasons as proposed also increase potential jeopardy for hunters. Early  archery runs concurrent (as proposed), and considering the rule which states one  cannot be afield during early/ special archery season bow while hunting with  someone who has a firearm in their possession afield. This condition creates  confusion to hunters and sets up additional fine opportunities, especially those  who may believe they can take their youth afield for the special youth firearms  season, and still carry their bow to participate as well. This should be  avoided.

12 - Considering the revelation that mandated Antler Restriction  compromises existing deer population estimating metrics, no expansion of AR  anywhere in NYS until such time as reliable population estimating tools are  developed. If this plan is supposed to improve deer management, a foundation of  this is being able to reliably estimate deer numbers to manage. Expanding AR in  the face of clear understand as to what expansion of AR does to population  estimating, is a contradiction and appears like an irresponsible move.

Wow, ok Ill reply one by one.

1- I think you are misunderstanding what the term "5 Year Plan" means. It means that the DEC would like to implement all of the points within 5 years. It does not mean that each implementation would only last 5 years, and yes, the plan will have a reach much further than 5 years.

2- Successful CWD containment? How many deer were found with CWD, and where were they from? The answer is 2 deer, from the same herd that most likely came into contact with captive deer in the area. They have lifted the "containment area", so there is no need to do anything other than continue testing harvested animals.

3 - I dont have an opinion on that one.

4 - You are contradicting yourself, and Im sorry but your statement doesnt add up. You would continue to allow the uncontrolled harvest of antlerless deer for a month (early bow season), but try to control it for a week (late ml season)? see my last reply to Dave for why I disagree.

5 - When you purchase(d) a lifetime, they did not guarantee any DMPs, they said you wouldnt have to pay for your entry to draw. The people granfathered would get the same tags as someone who pays each year, they just wouldnt have to pay for their DMPs. I havent heard this from DEC, but common sense would say that is the way they would do it.

6 - I dont agree with you on this. They are concerned over antlerless tags given out, and controlling the number of them. That in no way means that bow season shouldnt be expanded.

7 - This is a Deer plan, not a Bear plan. Whats your point?

8 - There is no mandatory orange in gun season now, whats the difference?

9 - Its not a youth bear hunt or big game hunt, its a youth deer hunt. Cant be much more clear than that.

10 - How much more do you want them to explain it? They have been clear that it will ONLY be implemented in areas where normal DMPs are not getting the job done. It would have to be implemented year to year and zone by zone or by specific area within a zone.

11 - Agreed.

12 - No opinion.

My rebuttal

1. Why even implement this plan at all until all the studies are done? The studies are supposed to take at least 5 years to complete, by then the DEC will be on to their new plan.

2. They still dont state this anywhere in the plan. Do they just plan to drop the testing for CWD altogether?

4. Archers take an insignificant # of antlerless deer on these tags according to the DEC so if its insignificant why eliminate it?

5.Common sense says never assume anything. Especially with the DEC. They need to make this clear in their plan.

6. I'm just stating that their plan contradicts itself. I'm all for expanding archery. Just seems like they dont really know what they want to do or why.

7. My point on this is will youths be able to shoot a Bear during the youth season? Need clarification on this in the plan.

8. The difference now would be gun hunters in the woods hunting deer during archery is dangerous and mandatory orange should be in the plan but its not. Seems like safety is taking a back seat in this plan.

9. see 7

10. In their own plan of improving antlerless management in high deer density areas it is the third option. Why not try the first 2 options first? Bonus DMP's and antlerless only days during bow? While I'm not a proponent of the second one, the bonus DMP's option could very well work just as good as an early ML season without all of the opposition.

11. WOW, we agree on something!

Remember, this is  supposed to be a plan for the deer herd in NY not just whats good for you.

Hey, its good to have someone to debate with that doesnt agree alot, but can debate in a ball busting, yet non-temper tantrum type of way!  ;D

My re-rebuttal...

1 - Im pretty sure the plan is the result of studies that have been and will continue to be ongoing.

2 - I dont know. My guess is they may cut it back some, but will continue to monitor it.

4 - We arent just talking bow here, you have ML as well, and x-bows are coming into the mix. Its as good a time as any to get a better grasp on it.

5 - Agreed, I was just giving my best guess. Im sure they will clarify many things before the plan is put into place.

6 - Its most likely due to the bowhunters incessant asking for the season to be expanded, plus maybe the DEC is trying to fall in line with most of the other state's seasons.

7 - Again, its not a bear hunting plan, why would they address youth bear hunting in it?

8 - There are already hunters with guns in the woods during bow season, and some bow hunters in the woods during gun season as it is. There are no laws mandating blaze orange now in any season, and I dont believe we need to have any put into place. Just my opinion.

9 - See 7

10 - If they stick to the plan, it wont get implemented very often or in very many areas. Other than more dead deer, the effects will probably be minimal. Bows just arent as effective and MLs dont cause the same type of disturbance as do regular guns with wide spread drives and 5 shot barrages.

11 - It can happen lol

I didnt make the plan, its just that I agree with alot of it, I also disgree with some and have no opinion on other things. You should heed your own advice. 

For the DEC to put together a 5 year plan they must of had a lot  of input from many sources.  I am shocked that mandatory reporting was never considered especially when you want to get a handle on the doe situation and allocation of DMP. Also what about coyote predation? Why don't we have open season on coyote, I am sure they account for a lot of dead deer that go unreported.

Dave

Reporting is mandatory it's just that most don't do it.. and why would you want to eliminate one species of animal over another?.. What coyotes do is natural for them... they are predators... predation is what they do... it's part of mother natures plan... mother nature doesn't care if we have enough deer for our freezer... any marked decline or increase in deer populations is directly the result of overhunting or under hunting a particular area.

Im pretty sure he means mandatory reporting of all tags, even if they did not get used.