A sad day for New York hunters

[Nomad]

GOLF ?? I'd rather slam my fingers in a car door...

Yes I went from "party permits" with 3 of us needed to take one doe, to 2 doe tags,either sex tags, and 20 some Dmaps that the farm gets . I always say these are the Golden days of deer hunting. Used to be getting out with friends and family and a chance at a deer every few years was enough to make you a happy hunter for life.

[nyantler]

What current proposal it that?

I am aware of and have posted the one from several years ago.

The Whitetail deer management coalition of NY is the group lobbying for yearling buck protection... they are the group that have help get AR's instituted in the current WMU's... they are currently making proposals for the rest of NY based on deer herds numbers, ratios, habitat quality.. etc. based on research of the WMU's over the last 3 years... their proposal IF an AR was to be used in the central and western NY WMU's is spread measurement instead of point restriction realizing that it would be much better for ensuring better yearling buck protection... currently they base it on trying to save approx. 67% of the yearling buck herd across the state... they realize that is not optimum but a good start for seeing results more quickly. Their original plan was 4 on a side, but their current thought is that spread measurement will have a better protection rate... I think my point is that 3 on a side doesn't seem to be an option here.

Just to clarify.. I spoke with an officer of the coalition about 2 weeks ago.. just to see where they were headed and voice my opinions and concerns... the idea of spread measurement instead of 4 on a side is where they are leaning now... at least for region 7 specifically

Edited September 6, 2012 by nyantler

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Joe,

I can understand how a littel pain in 7 8 and 9 regions could yeild big dividends for more mature bucks. In most of those areas they have at least decent doe permit allocations. I do hear people not getting a tag in some areas. We can't (I won't) support a program that askes hunters to go afield with almost no possibility to take a deer. Even though the seasons have increased in length the average hunter still only has ?? days to hunt. The economy what it is time off if tough. SZ gun season is 4 weekends. Throw in Thanksgiving and you have 9 days. If you are lucky to have that Friday off. 10 days.

Most of NZ is a whole other story with most of it having NO possibility for doe tags.

[Doewhacker]

I never get how some of you scream UNFAIR when you are faced with a management decision that affects you personally... but are okay with imposing your own unfair idea to remedy the problem... you get to do what you want and others get punished... just for shits and giggles.. tell me how your plan benefits the deer

You didn't recognize he was joking? Man, did you bump your head or something Joe?

[steve863]

I never get how some of you scream UNFAIR when you are faced with a management decision that affects you personally... but are okay with imposing your own unfair idea to remedy the problem... you get to do what you want and others get punished... just for shits and giggles.. tell me how your plan benefits the deer

Please show me where the DEC considers AR's a management decision?? They have repeatedly stated that AR's have NO biological benefits for the herd. The only reason they were implemented was because AR's have become a "social issue" in these areas. Read their reports and you will see. So tell me, what the hell does a "social issue" have to do with game management? If the DEC told me that from their studies AR's are considered beneficial for deer management I may be able to swallow this concept and begin to accept it. When they tell me that it is basically a "social issue", I call it BS. So everyone now has to follow the big rack mentality just because some have "social issues", showing off a buck that may not measure up to what they see on TV?? That is BS in its purest form. It's the same syndrome as those who think their weiner is bigger than the next guys. Absolutely not ONE speck of evidence has been brought out by the DEC to validate that AR's have been implemented for management decision purposes. I dare you guys to show me some info. And don't give me the QDMA crap neither. That is not coming from the mouths of the DEC officials.

[Doewhacker]

You won't get that from them steve, and they will call the Dec liars for proving them wrong. Seen it all before when Elmer posted an article from Jeremy Hurst proving every thing they preach wrong.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Doewhacker

[nyantler]

The management decision is to reduce the number of yearling bucks being taken in AR areas... a decision by the DEC to "manage" the amount of yearling being harvested... it's simple...

These are the first 2 sentences on the DEC.. Antler Restrictions in New York page:

An antler point restriction is in place in WMUs 3A, 3C, 3H, 3J, 3K, 4G, 4O, 4P, 4R, 4S and 4W in Southeastern New York. The antler restrictions is designed to reduce harvest of yearling (1.5 years old) bucks.

I believe the highlighted sentence constitutes management of yearling buck harvest as designation for AR's.

[Doewhacker]

And??????? It does not say it is beneficial in any way just what the goal for it is.

[nyantler]

I think this article by Jeremy Hurst words should be sufficient to prove AR is part of the NY Deer Management Plan

Brought to you by:

Jeremy Hurst, Wildlife Biologist, NYSDEC

Last fall, DEC adopted a Management Plan for White-tailed Deer in New York State, 2012–2016. The plan provides strategic direction for our program and will help us focus our efforts where they can best meet the biological and social demands associated with deer. Through the plan we emphasize the value of hunting as a tradition and as the primary tool for deer management, the need to create new opportunities for young deer hunters, and the importance of addressing the ecological impacts associated with deer.

The plan outlines six primary goals that encompass the priorities for deer management and the values and issues expressed by the public: 1) manage deer populations at levels that are appropriate for human and ecological concerns; 2) promote and enhance deer hunting as an important tradition and management tool; 3) reduce negative impacts caused by deer; 4) foster public understanding and communication about deer ecology, deer management, economic aspects and recreational opportunities; 5) manage deer to promote healthy and sustainable forests and enhance habitat conservation efforts to benefit deer and other species; and 6) ensure that the necessary resources are available to support effective management of white-tailed deer in New York.

This fall, DEC has adopted regulations to begin implementing several strategies of the deer plan, primarily geared toward increasing opportunity for hunters. These include:

• beginning the Southern Zone bowhunting season and the regular season in Westchester County (bowhunting only) on October 1;
  
• establishing a late bowhunting season in December in the Northern Zone;
  
• allowing Deer Management Permits (DMPs, “doe tags”) to be used in all seasons in the Northern Zone;
  
• expanding mandatory antler restrictions (3 point on one side minimum) into Wildlife Management Units (WMUs) 3A, 4G, 4O, 4P, 4R, 4S, and 4W;
  
• opening all of Suffolk County for the special January firearms season, subject to local discharge ordinances; and
  
• establishing a Deer Management Focus Area in Tompkins County to intensify use of hunting to assist communities with the burden of overabundant deer populations.
  

Also this fall, we will be implementing a new big game hunter log to track hunting effort and sighting rates of deer, black bear and moose during the regular firearms season. Logs will be sent to a random sample of hunters throughout the state.

Moving forward, our next major tasks from the deer plan will be to:

• develop Wildlife Management Unit groupings for use in deer population monitoring, harvest analysis and management decisions;
  
• evaluate making Bonus DMPs antlerless-only or requiring hunters to take more than one antlerless deer before earning an either-sex Bonus DMP;
  
• develop an objective system for identifying appropriate strategies to reduce harvest of young bucks (see Antler Restrictions and Other Buck Harvest Strategies); and
  
• develop an index to asses deer impacts on forests and incorporate that index into deer population objective setting.
  

Aside from deer, over the coming year, DEC’s Big Game Management Team will also be drafting a management plan for black bear and developing a research program to assess moose populations.

Edited September 6, 2012 by nyantler

[steve863]

The management decision is to reduce the number of yearling bucks being taken in AR areas... a decision by the DEC to "manage" the amount of yearling being harvested... it's simple...

These are the first 2 sentences on the DEC.. Antler Restrictions in New York page:

An antler point restriction is in place in WMUs 3A, 3C, 3H, 3J, 3K, 4G, 4O, 4P, 4R, 4S and 4W in Southeastern New York. The antler restrictions is designed to reduce harvest of yearling (1.5 years old) bucks.

I believe the highlighted sentence constitutes management of yearling buck harvest as designation for AR's.

Why don't you paste the rest of their conclusions on AR's?? What benefits to the herd does this reduction of the yearling buck take have? NONE. A 1.5 Y/O will breed with does just the same as a 3.5 Y/O, and will pass on the same exact genes to the next generation. So what real difference does it make which buck gets the bullet thru it's lungs?? The honest answer is again NONE. The ONLY benefit it might have is to hunters who somehow think that by passing on all the 1.5 Y/O, they will only have big bucks running around their stands like they see on the TV shows. That pretty much sums it all up for you here.

[Doewhacker]

I think this article by Jeremy Hurst words should be sufficient to prove AR is part of the NY Deer Management Plan

.

Still doesn't say it is beneficial to the herd or biologically needed. lol

[SteveMcD]

Well, there ya go. The silent majority is indeed silent, aren't they? So what good are they? And who cares about their opinions and how they think the world is suffering? The fact is that the organizations that you are whining about are active, energetic, advocates for what they believe. If you don't like it then take your whining somewhere besides internet forums and play the game the way it is supposed to be played. Nobody cares that you don't have the spine to do anything but complain. I get a bit irked everytime I see these people claiming "Well gosh, their views don't represent me". Get over it ..... if there are so many people who disagree with ARs and the NYB views then stop your crying and get involved like those people did. If you can't work inside of those groups then start your own. Put your damn money and effort where your mouth is instead of just moaning about those that do.

I'm sorry if I appear to be coming on a little strong about this, but it is just something that finally had to be said. Enough of this worthless bashing. If you have such strong feelings about these issues then do something useful and worthwhile about it.

I have to agree with Doc whole-heartedly on this one. The AR "Restrictions" Proposed Regulations were also contained within the 5 Year Management Plan, and there was a very long period of time for public comment that anyone and everyone had ample opportunity to respond. Also nothing stopping anyone from writing their own state representatives, senator or even the governor's office for that matter.

[nyantler]

Still doesn't say it is beneficial to the herd or biologically needed. lol

Just because something isn't needed doesn't mean it is not beneficial... Are the deer in NY going to continue to survive without AR's..Sure. Is it better to have a stable buck age structure in the whitetail population..YES. Not having AR's will not put our deer herd in eminent danger which is the basis for Hurst's statement, but that in no way implys that he somehow doesn't think yearling buck protection and age structure isn't beneficial to the herd.

[SteveMcD]

Why don't you paste the rest of their conclusions on AR's?? What benefits to the herd does this reduction of the yearling buck take have? NONE. A 1.5 Y/O will breed with does just the same as a 3.5 Y/O, and will pass on the same exact genes to the next generation. So what real difference does it make which buck gets the bullet thru it's lungs?? The honest answer is again NONE. The ONLY benefit it might have is to hunters who somehow think that by passing on all the 1.5 Y/O, they will only have big bucks running around their stands like they see on the TV shows. That pretty much sums it all up for you here.

AR Restrictions regarding the protecting of 1.5 Year Old Bucks actually is very beneficial. 1) It provides greater opportunity to see that the older bucks are the ones doing the majority of the breeding, 2) helps to consolidate the breeding into single breeding rut period, versus years where we had a split rut. 3) When 1 & 2 are possible, this means the majority of Does will give birth approximately at the same time, rather than an early and late fawn birthing periods. This in turn provides better consolidation of fawn births in a single period and thus reduces the number of overall fawn mortality by Coyotes. Coyotes kill approx. 2 fawns per square mile (Black Bears kill 1 fawn per square mile), when you have two fawn birthing periods the greater the fawn mortality will go up.

For those that have Antler Restrictions, everyone griped when they were first inacted. But after the second year and everyone was shoting 8 pointers instead of button bucks and spikes, everyone was all smiles. Patience.

[Doewhacker]

Just because something isn't needed doesn't mean it is not beneficial... Are the deer in NY going to continue to survive without AR's..Sure. Is it better to have a stable buck age structure in the whitetail population..YES. Not having AR's will not put our deer herd in eminent danger which is the basis for Hurst's statement, but that in no way implys that he somehow doesn't think yearling buck protection and age structure isn't beneficial to the herd.

Actually thats not what he was implying, stop stretching Joe. It is of no benefit to the herd, the herd is healthy and that has been proven, you just don't agree with him.

[Doewhacker]

AR Restrictions regarding the protecting of 1.5 Year Old Bucks actually is very beneficial. 1) It provides greater opportunity to see that the older bucks are the ones doing the majority of the breeding, 2) helps to consolidate the breeding into single breeding rut period, versus years where we had a split rut. 3) When 1 & 2 are possible, this means the majority of Does will give birth approximately at the same time, rather than an early and late fawn birthing periods. This in turn provides better consolidation of fawn births in a single period and thus reduces the number of overall fawn mortality by Coyotes. Coyotes kill approx. 2 fawns per square mile (Black Bears kill 1 fawn per square mile), when you have two fawn birthing periods the greater the fawn mortality will go up.

For those that have Antler Restrictions, everyone griped when they were first inacted. But after the second year and everyone was shoting 8 pointers instead of button bucks and spikes, everyone was all smiles. Patience.

Actually you are wrong, as was proven by Jeremy Hurst in the article I referenced earlier.

[steve863]

Also nothing stopping anyone from writing their own state representatives, senator or even the governor's office for that matter.

That is what I was told to do when I wrote to the DEC in opposition of AR's. So how would writing the reps actually help? The way I understand thing is that the DEC enacted this plan all by themselves after a public comment period. They have a legal mandate to do whatever they wish as far as the deer herd is concerned.

Legal Mandate

The basis for New York’s deer management program is established in the New York State Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) which spells out specific policy, authority and responsibility related to the deer resource. Excerpts of selected law include:

Section 11-0105

The State of New York owns all fish, game, wildlife, shellfish, crustacean and protected insects in the state, except those legally acquired and held in private ownership.

Section 11-0303

The general purpose of powers affecting fish and wildlife, granted to the department by the Fish and Wildlife Law, is to vest in the department, to the extent of the powers so granted, the efficient management of the fish and wildlife resources of the state. Such resources shall be deemed to include all animal and vegetable life and the soil, water and atmospheric environment thereof, owned by the state or of which it may obtain management, to the extent that they constitute the habitat of fish and wildlife as defined in section 11-0103. Such management shall be deemed to include both the maintenance and improvement of such resources as natural resources and the development and administration of measures for making them accessible to the people of the state.

To such extent as it shall deem feasible without prejudice to other functions in the management of fish and wildlife resources of the state and the execution of other duties imposed by law, the department is directed, in the exercise of the powers conferred upon it, to develop and carry out programs and procedures which will in its judgment, (a) promote natural propagation and maintenance of desirable species in ecological balance, and ( lead to the observance of sound management practices for such propagation and maintenance on lands and waters of the state, whether owned by the state or by a public corporation of the state or held in private ownership,

NYS Deer Management Plan Page 7having regard to (1) ecological factors, including the need for restoration and improvement of natural habitat and the importance of ecological balance in maintaining natural resources; (2) the compatibility of production and harvesting of fish and wildlife crops with other necessary or desirable land uses; (3) the importance of fish and wildlife resources for recreational purposes; (4) requirements for public safety; and (5) the need for adequate protection of private premises and of the persons and property of occupants thereof against abuse of privileges of access to such premises for hunting, fishing or trapping.

Edited September 6, 2012 by steve863

[nyantler]

Why don't you paste the rest of their conclusions on AR's?? What benefits to the herd does this reduction of the yearling buck take have? NONE. A 1.5 Y/O will breed with does just the same as a 3.5 Y/O, and will pass on the same exact genes to the next generation. So what real difference does it make which buck gets the bullet thru it's lungs?? The honest answer is again NONE. The ONLY benefit it might have is to hunters who somehow think that by passing on all the 1.5 Y/O, they will only have big bucks running around their stands like they see on the TV shows. That pretty much sums it all up for you here.

I've already explained this numerous times on here... you're unwillingness to pay attention is getting old... just because you spout jeremy hurst's talking points without taking them in the right context doesn't mean you know what you're talking about... I will say you have all the info right as he explained it, yet you have no idea what it means as it pertains to what he was responding to... I give.. UNCLE.. you wore me down... you're a lost cause on this subject... and you still think that it's all about trophy hunting for me.. you clearly aren't paying attention... so carry on!

PS. Remember... this is where you start with the name calling... just don't want you to miss your cue!

[Doewhacker]

So does that mean you don't have an answer to the article or are you going to act as if it does not exist?

[nyantler]

Actually you are wrong, as was proven by Jeremy Hurst in the article I referenced earlier.

He didn't "prove" anything.. he just wrote something on a piece of paper which has nothing to do with herd benefit... he was talking about eminent biological need for survival not whether it is more or less beneficial.

[nyantler]

So does that mean you don't have an answer to the article or are you going to act as if it does not exist?

I have given my answer too many times on this forum... go back and look... you guys make me tired.

[steve863]

AR Restrictions regarding the protecting of 1.5 Year Old Bucks actually is very beneficial. 1) It provides greater opportunity to see that the older bucks are the ones doing the majority of the breeding, 2) helps to consolidate the breeding into single breeding rut period, versus years where we had a split rut. 3) When 1 & 2 are possible, this means the majority of Does will give birth approximately at the same time, rather than an early and late fawn birthing periods. This in turn provides better consolidation of fawn births in a single period and thus reduces the number of overall fawn mortality by Coyotes. Coyotes kill approx. 2 fawns per square mile (Black Bears kill 1 fawn per square mile), when you have two fawn birthing periods the greater the fawn mortality will go up.

For those that have Antler Restrictions, everyone griped when they were first inacted. But after the second year and everyone was shoting 8 pointers instead of button bucks and spikes, everyone was all smiles. Patience.

The only thing I will agree with you on is what I highlighted. That pretty much sums it up, just like I said before. It's ALL about hunters hoping to shoot bigger bucks and the "it's better for the herd" argument is just lip service to help justify their true desires. Whether you want to believe it or not, hunting is basically allowed to reduce the deer herds. Society for the most part can accept that. Tell them that hunters true motives are to kill trophies without the "its better for the herd" song and dance, and public support will go downhill real fast.

[Doewhacker]

I have given my answer too many times on this forum... go back and look... you guys make me tired.

So you are saying he (biologist) is wrong and you are right? Do know the article I am talking about? He proved every one of your points you have continuosly made wrong is all I'm saying.

[steve863]

I have given my answer too many times on this forum... go back and look... you guys make me tired.

Why should we accept your answer?? If the DEC gave me that answer, maybe I can begin to accept it. So far they haven't, so I see absolutely NO reason why I should take your answer over theirs.

[SteveMcD]

That is what I was told to do when I wrote to the DEC in opposition of AR's. So how would writing the reps actually help? The way I understand thing is that the DEC enacted this plan all by themselves after a public comment period. They have a legal mandate to do whatever they wish as far as the deer herd is concerned.

I see. If you wrote to the DEC about it;, the reason they got adopted anyway, is because the majority of Public Comment feedback was favoraable for it, and not against it. So again, the system worked. And my mistake, I believe in working these things through the DEC and leaving the Politicians out of it completely. The DEC are the professionals with the science and knowledge to manage and regulate the Deer Herd, not the Politicians. And we should not undermine the DEC's regulatory authority by getting Politicians involved.