Doc

Well, perhaps if there is no state uniqueness, we should have a federal deer management oversight agency that sets the rules for the DEC to administer. Apparently it is being assumed that there is one set of management principles that apply from coast to coast. Frankly, I don't buy it. I cannot think of a single state that has the diversity that NYS has all in one state. Right off the bat, that is what caused us to establish a Northern Zone and a Southern zone with some pretty basic and necessary differences in people and deer density, and habitat and climate and hunting pressure. And yes, we do have huge climate differences from one corner of the state to the other. And then there are the Catskills that have their own little management nuances. We can't even get commonality within our state boundaries, let alone apply "what works" from other states. I suspect that the DEC wishes that it were as simple as cherry picking from other states. Yes we are unique. And I for one will not presume to think that the idea to look to other states for management theories, research and actions has never been thought of by the DEC.

I think what they are saying is that hunters in that area are not shooting an adequate number of does to keep the population from continuing to explode. Regardless of where the hunters of that area stand in the percentages, they still are not keeping pace with the available does. There is something unique about that region that is causing an out-of-control deer population, they say. Each year they have doe tags left over that no one is interested in picking up. So flooding the area with more permits is simply not hacking it anymore. So the question still has to be asked (and not ignored or buried in BS), why this one relatively small area of NYS has this unique problem. And I am simply asking that question. And no the solution is not to run off and randomly try this idea or that idea from some randomly selected state. This unique regional problem will require a unique targeted regional solution. And my thought is that when that question that I am asking is answered, there may very well be some major breakthroughs in deer management that may reach beyond the boundaries of these few WMUs.

It is true that just about any plan you can devise can be cheated. That is why it is important to get serious (not contrived) hunter buy-in. And yes, you will still get the cheaters. And you will have to work to foil as many of those cheaters as possible just like they have to do with any conservation law in existence. But if you can get the majority of hunters in synch with what you are trying to do, the cheating problem gets a little less. Not only do you get more conformance, but you get more willing eyes out there to aid in bringing down cheaters. However, I do agree that a lot of ideas sound great until you start to examine the details. Those "details" are good to bring up and talk about.

Care to address the discussion rather than simply worrying about how I express myself. I mean that whining in the face of not having anything real to say is getting pretty darn old. My gosh, at least I have opinions and don't have to harp about a few words that seem to sting in your craw. I mean really, if you have something real to add lets hear it, but you people who rave about all these ideas with the zeal of an insurance salesman (sorry insurance salesmen) really shouldn't whine so much when somebody paraphrases your enthusiasm with a few accurate descriptive alternative terms. As to your last paragraph, I'm sorry that I have opinions, and I'm sorry that they rankle you so, but this is a forum where opinions are expressed. Get used to it.

I doubt it is deer in the summer. Are they cut or broken? Are they dead or alive? Any pictures?

I guess the old "grass is greener" syndrome can apply to hunting too .... lol. Perhaps our deer management should just consist of blindly copying all the other states. But then since none of them have all the same answers to all the same problems, how do we decide which one has it right?...lol. Which ones of all those "perfectly managed" states has the same human population densities, hunting pressures, variety of terrain, land use, and habitat, and extreme weather zones that we have? No I am not saying that there are not some ideas that we can successfully borrow from other states. But I also am not ready to assume that just because some other state has adopted any of these programs, that it automatically is some magic bullet for NY. I'm sure there is a bit more to management than just copying other states. But then, I am no better than any of the other armchair game managers on this site. We all do a heck of a job of game management when we get in front of our computers......right?

You really do have to wonder why this is getting to be a growing problem in some areas and not in others. In fact if you look at the areas they have defined as being out of control, there seems to be a "regionality" to it. Are the cultural changes really all that isolated that they would only show up in certain clustered specific areas? What is unique about those isolated areas that makes people not want to shoot does? I like the line of your questions and think that you may be thinking outside the box and that may be where the solutions lie. Looking at the map, it seems that the problem is localized, and if I were the DEC, I would be asking what it is that makes these areas unique. Perhaps it could suggest a whole category of solutions that no one is even considering.

I agree that the no tolerance regulations against shooting lane trimming is a bit ridiculous. But such relaxation of this restriction has to be well thought out and crafted carefully. I don't think we want people going in with power equipment and clear cutting shooting lanes. Also, I believe there are some species that should not be messed with. So some good definition, and I believe that the regulations on this could be (should be) relaxed a bit.

Keep us posted as to how the deer react to all the commotion. It is a great learning opportunity, because I have never encountered the scenario you are describing. I am curious too.

I'm not sure yet. I can't really see any harm in it, but haven't really thought too much about it.

Oh no .... I'm not getting into this one. It's too damned embarrassing.

No what this amounts to is a bit of inspection of potential negatives rather than just charging headlong into a plan simply because it sounds good on the surface. And I do have to wonder about whether the grass really is greener on the other side of the state line as everyone seems to want to say when they are enthusiastic about some of these cure-alls.

Agreed. What is up with all the secrecy regarding facts, figures, goals, etc. It makes one wonder if they really do have any of that. It does seem that everytime they offer a peek inside the workings of the DEC, there are even more doubts and suspicions that maybe there is no cohesive plan or perhaps they are truly operating by the seat of their pants. Brings to mind that old saying: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt". But I agree. The relationship between the DEC and hunters seems to be a one-way partnership in which hunters are dictated to without the benefit of knowing where the dictates are headed or the details, whys, and wherefores of the actions. They may not believe it, but to me it is obvious that they need the buy-in of those carrying out the plan (hunters). The success of the plan relies on it. So either they feel that buy-in is not necessary, or even scarier, maybe the facts and figures don't exist and the DEC is just winging it.

That was funny! What makes them do that? is it really playfulness that all of a sudden strikes, or is it bugs finally getting to them?

And, I'll bet that's the way it is with most hunters. The title of this thread may be more on target than the thread author thought. "1 and done" may be exactly the real result that OBR produces. And I wonder how that result would impact the harvest of does in those areas where high populations are a problem. No, I don't really wonder.....lol.

It's even more disheartening that the DEC finds it necessary to develop bonehead plans like this antlerless only edict in certain areas. And yet, here we are. Now the reality..... Hunters want to hunt. They for the most part do not want to manage. We pay taxes to have that done. As it turns out, for the DEC to be effective in their job, they must have the cooperation of the hunters. So, if they have to do some cajoling and enticement that will likely work a whole lot better than dictating and restricting. Yes there is definitely some educating and promotion that needs to be done. But the mentality of hunters has to be understood and dealt with, since they are the only population control tool that has so far proven to be viable. We have gotten into this mentality where antlers are the only measure of success in deer hunting. That, I believe, is the root of the problem that results in the refusal to shoot does. The fact that we can issue permits until we run out of paper, and hunters refuse to use them, shows that there is a hunter mindset problem. Until somebody figures a way to put a feeling of challenge and satisfaction back into shooting does, we may very well have to rely on gimmicks that provide an acceptable reason and incentives to these hunters to shoot a does. We can decry the fact that we have to resort to that, but we also have to face the human nature involved in the problem.

Well, first my Mathews MQ-32 will have its turn. But when that opener for gun season rolls around, I will be all hunkered down in my piled up brush blind, dressed like a blaze orange Eskimo, sitting on my stool with a pack full of cold fried egg sandwiches and the thermos of coffee and other goodies strewn around me, binocs dangling around my neck and my Ruger American .270 waiting to do the job. My gun stands turn into a camp of sorts, and I make a real party of it all.....lol.

Too bad we can't bottle some of this heat. I'm sure the time when we would appreciate it isn't too many months away.

Bowhunting for deer.

Yeah, I am not all that good at explaining these plans. It usually takes a whole lot of attempts before it gets clear. Basically it is a "one buck per season rule" that has a trap-door for the extra buck tag for those that really feel they just have to harvest another buck. Since extra bucks appear to be the big appeal to hunters and that seems to be the lure that can get them to kill does. Why not use that mentality. They can have their 2nd buck, but they have to earn it. Ha-ha .... see, you even get a bit of Earn-a-buck in there too. Now I don't know if the DEC tried exactly this plan or not, and frankly I don't really care. It sounds like a good plan to me and I thought I would bring it here for discussion.

Just got done reading a pretty good suggestion that kind of becomes a replacement for the "Does Only" attempt at reducing deer numbers. It also implements the "One-and-Done" rule that so many want, but with a way that hunters could earn additional buck opportunities. Some guy commenting in the latest NYON letters section, suggested a system where the OBR would be enacted, but with an option that taking one or two does in the overpopulated areas would be rewarded by the issuance of a second buck tag or an additional either-sex tag. Well, I tweaked some of his suggestion a bit, but the general theme of his suggestion is there. I thought that was a pretty good idea. It takes away all the perceived restrictive aspects and replaces all that negativity with a reward system for whacking the does. It's an incentive instead of a punishment. Kind of a new way of looking at management policies. Tweak it and mold it around a bit to fine-tune it, but I do like the change in thinking from harassing hunters to rewarding them for taking does. Those kinds of decisions are things that I could get behind and support. yeah, it's a pretty raw idea and needs some work, but I think it gets hunters behind the idea of taking does (perhaps even enthusiastically) without really taking much of anything away from them. What do you all think?

Well, bowhunter shooting experts always tell you to "pick a spot to aim at". Well, these little guys make it easy to do that.

I agree that many, perhaps even most, hunters may be very, very casual about their hunting, and may not really see any need for involvement beyond going out and having a great time. Most of them maybe go out on opening day only during their season. And I would be very surprised if any of these guys worried a bit about real deer management, population control, biology.. etc. To them it is like bowling. They just do it but don't really care who maintains the alleys. Just human nature I guess. Their involvement in hunting is so slight that they don't feel a need for knowing anymore than pulling the trigger. That is just the nature of hunting today, and likely has always been that way.

I think if you read all of the replies you will find that that is not true. I'm generally very careful about that.

I have heard that some guys spray their arrows with some sort of lubricant to help getting them out of some of the more stubborn targets.