Deer regs decisions coming

[Buckmaster7600]

In my view the majority of Hunters in NY are gun hunters. shortening that season IMO is a mistake and will effect participation. I am not a fan of our current tag system and would have no problem with every big game hunter getting a single buck tag to utilize in what ever season they want. I also think that the antlerless tags for the special season should go away. Nuisance tags should go away and the entire state should be managed for population control through the DMP lottery system. I think there should be mandatory reporting of tags in a system that is visually verified before next years tags can be issued. If you fill it out and use it then it will be presented prior to the next years tag and recorded. If you don't bring it in you don't get one for next year. Get rid of the signing over of DMP's. .

Why get rid of signing over dmp's, I think that is awesome, my uncle can no longer hunt and he loves venison he signs his tag to me I fill his freezer. How is that not a good thing?

[newbreed]

something else i would like to point out, people always compare NY deer to deer in other states and see that the deer in other states are bigger then NY deer, which is true and yes these other states may have ARs in place but also in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa Kansas, Wisconsin, Kentucky and Indiana all allow out of season Supplemental feeding which has a big impact in antler growth and deer health and size. thats somthing the big rack people might also want to speek up about if they want bigger deer in NY.

Edited November 27, 2013 by newbreed

[beachpeaz]

It was briefly mentioned in here, but the major "fix" is really being overlooked.

 

NYS went to the smaller WMU's.  They can now control deer herds and hunter ratio's better IF they wanted to.

 

I will give you an example:

 

I have the priveledge of hunting in Utah quite a bit because I have family there.  They in fact use a WMU system and control both the number of hunters and the amount of deer tags per unit. 

 

By doing so, they can controlt he health of the population of the deer (Buck to Doe ratio's) to ensure generations of healthy deer herds.  This in turn is what provides "better" hunting for BOTH people who are just trying to fill the freezer (better deer numbers) AND the person who is sport hunting for a rack (better deer quality).

 

They adjust the amount of hunters per unit each year, they adjust the amount of deer tags per unit each year and even go as far as taking deer off units with higher populatioins and moving them to units with lower numbers.

 

Is it a lot of work for the "DEC" level, YES, but anthing worth doing takes time and effort.

 

You would not have to have AR's anywhere, nor have this discussion.  It would be the natural result of ACTUALLY managing the deer numbers in NYS by unit.

I am very surprised that hasn't been discussed!!

[Doewhacker]

In my opinion what we might see is one buck tag, seems most guys are ok with that and it may be the least controversial. Season lengths I don't see changing by a bunch but who knows? Most deer (@85%) are killed the first week of the season and thats not going to change no matter how short the season becomes. What would affect deer take is moving the opener away from the rut, not suggesting they do that just stating the obvious.

 

If I were looking to be a big buck hunter I would be promoting Ohio's season structure all the way.

[Doewhacker]

.

 

Is it a lot of work for the "DEC" level, YES, but anthing worth doing takes time and effort.

 

 

and money.

[beachpeaz]

In my opinion what we might see is one buck tag, seems most guys are ok with that and it may be the least controversial. Season lengths I don't see changing by a bunch but who knows? Most deer (@85%) are killed the first week of the season and thats not going to change no matter how short the season becomes. What would affect deer take is moving the opener away from the rut, not suggesting they do that just stating the obvious.

 

If I were looking to be a big buck hunter I would be promoting Ohio's season structure all the way.

 

and, like I just wrote above, all of this wouldn't matter based on that system.  It wouldn't matter how long the season was, what weapons were or were not allowed, etc.  There ar a certaiin amount of hunters and tags per WMU, end of story.  Shoot em opening weekend with a rifle, shoote em thanksgiving with a pistol, doesn't matter....A tag would be a tag and counted towards the deer population numbers.

[beachpeaz]

and money.

 

I dont believe any more money than what they spend now.  Just allocated differently.  The DEC budget is QUITE large.  Tell them to stop studying the migratory habits of flying rats (Canadian Geese that litter our golf courses) and spend time where it matters. 

 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Why get rid of signing over dmp's, I think that is awesome, my uncle can no longer hunt and he loves venison he signs his tag to me I fill his freezer. How is that not a good thing?

I and the guys I hunt with  benefit from them as well. Let's be honest though. There are lots of licenses out there for the sole purpose of just getting the ability of a doe tag. It even happened before the sign over was made legal. But why, in your example, should your Uncle who can not go afield, have the ability to pull a tag from someone who is actually hunting. I know guys that only draw on every other year and the surrogate hunters and the does taken with ML and Bows play into that. Just my opinion, and you know wht they say about opinions...lol

[Doewhacker]

I dont believe any more money than what they spend now.  Just allocated differently.  The DEC budget is QUITE large.  Tell them to stop studying the migratory habits of flying rats (Canadian Geese that litter our golf courses) and spend time where it matters. 

 

 

The DEC also covers far more than just hunting. Our state cannot get its spending under control, what makes you think the DEC can and will make any changes that would be considered radical by the majority of hunters?

 

Baby steps is what we shall get.

[beachpeaz]

The DEC also covers far more than just hunting. Our state cannot get its spending under control, what makes you think the DEC can and will make any changes that would be considered radical by the majority of hunters?

 

Baby steps is what we shall get.

 

you are correct, but where do you think a majority of their revenue comes from?  Hunting liscense sales!!  Of all revenue based activity the DEC collects, this is by far the largest chunk.  Might as well invest it back into hunting.

 

And, yes, i understand baby steps.  People are SO change resistent.  An actual deer program that benefits the deer herd and hunters would no doubt be voted down by the people of this state.  They want to walk out the door an pull the trigger without regard to anything else.  I respect that, but I am one for change!

[bubba]

you are correct, but where do you think a majority of their revenue comes from? Hunting liscense sales!! Of all revenue based activity the DEC collects, this is by far the largest chunk. Might as well invest it back into hunting.

And, yes, i understand baby steps. People are SO change resistent. An actual deer program that benefits the deer herd and hunters would no doubt be voted down by the people of this state. They want to walk out the door an pull the trigger without regard to anything else. I respect that, but I am one for change!

that is not necessarily true.we get.more money from the federal govt through the pittman Robertson act.

Sent from my LGL35G using Tapatalk 2

[beachpeaz]

that is not necessarily true.we get.more money from the federal govt through the pittman Robertson act.

Sent from my LGL35G using Tapatalk 2

 

I was referrering to sources of Revenue related to our contributions.  I realize that all state and federal agencies obviously rely heavily on funding from the State and Federal levels as well!

 

I would still bet that revenue from hunting liscense sales is one of the highest sources of income for the DEC.

 

 

Edited November 27, 2013 by beachpeaz

[Doewhacker]

Change that makes sense will not happen in NY. There are too many people involved now for a simple answer.

 

We won't utilize one of our most valueable resources, old growth timber in the Adirondacks because of politics. The same politics make decisions for hunting and it makes me want to puke. 

 

The best bet is to leave NY for a state more to your liking as far as hunting is concerned, as sad as that is.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

yeah....just let it grow until it burns. Over the last decades how has that "leave the timber alone" approached worked out west? I never remember the amount of fires out there as there are now.

[dhuntley2]

You can regulate antler restrictions until you are blue in the face, it still won't change the habitat. If you don't have good deer habitat you won't have many deer. Simple as that. There isn't an AR out there that will change that fact.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

You can regulate antler restrictions until you are blue in the face, it still won't change the habitat. If you don't have good deer habitat you won't have many deer. Simple as that. There isn't an AR out there that will change that fact.

I think NY has some great whitetail habitat

[beachpeaz]

I think NY has some great whitetail habitat

 

Agreed!  And back to  my serveral posts.

 

This state is definitely no different than our neighbor Ohio!!  The difference is how they regulate it.

 

I

[dhuntley2]

Yes NY has great deer habitat in some areas and horrible deer habitat in others. Like many people here have said it's a big state the whole state is not the same habitat where one person hunts. What I was getting at is if you have bad habitat that's your problem right there. It does not matter what you do to regulate the antlers you still will not have more deer.

Edited November 27, 2013 by dhuntley2

[beachpeaz]

Yes NY has great deer habitat in some areas and horrible deer habitat in others. Like many people here have said it's a big state the whole state is not the same habitat where one person hunts. What I was getting at is if you have bad habitat that's your problem right there. It does not matter what you do to regulate the deer you still will not have more deer.

 

But it COULD. Read the post i have above about what other states do with that EXACT scenario.  If you think every state in the country has exactly the same habitat state wide, your crazy.  NY is no different that any other state.  Take the best in the world with OH, IL, IA, they have GREAT areas and they have crappy areas just like us.  The difference is that they regulate how many hunters and tags are designated per unit based on proper deer ratios and herd health.  In NY you could have a crappy area with low deer numbers and mostly young deer and have more hunters and tags per square mile than an area that holds great deer!  It makes no sense.  And as long as it stays that way, those areas will never improve.  Antler restrictions will do jack @#$% because it is just as much about the doe that are shot as the bucks.

 

Let me bore you with simple math (because it is easier for me to rationalize math anyways):

 

Lets say you have a WMU that is 30 square miles.  The DEC determines that there are 15 deer / sq mile.  That means there are approximately 450 deer in that unit.  They also determine that the buck to doe ratio is 1:5, meaning there are 90 bucks and 360 doe.

 

Lets say a neighboring WMU is also 30 square miles.  The DEC determines that there are 50 deer / sq mile.  That is 1,500 deer on that WMU.  Buck to Doe ration of 1:5, meaning ther are 300 bucks in basically the same amount of area as the first example.

 

Does it make sense to have 1,500 tags given out for both of those units?

 

In other states they would factor the following:   They would determine the amount of deer that could safely be harvested with effecting future generations.  Lets say that is 50%.  They then determine the success rate of previous years of all tag holders, lets say that is 20% of the tags.  So, in Area 1 above, they would be ok with 45 bucks being harvested, given the 20% success rate of tag holders, they could safely give out 900 buck tags for that unit, NOT 1,500!!

 

In area 2, with the exact same example, they would give out 1,500 tags, exactly as I stated.

 

Not our state though, they will give out 10,000 if that is who comes to the counter.  Then people wonder why the hunting sucks.

 

 

Edited November 27, 2013 by beachpeaz

[dhuntley2]

I'm talking huge regions like the ADKs not just my land vs my neighbors land. There is just no food for more deer in these areas. Also its hard to compare a state to another state look at how many hunters nys has. Some 700000 how many does IA have? Something in the 100000s. There are so many hunters per square mile in NY. I would kill monsters every year if their was only 100000 hunters here. NY does have potential for huge bucks throughout a lot of the state, but it is going to take a lot of people passing up the younger bucks for a while to get the age structure to what these other states have.

Edited November 27, 2013 by dhuntley2

[beachpeaz]

But it COULD. Read the post i have above about what other states do with that EXACT scenario.  If you think every state in the country has exactly the same habitat state wide, your crazy.  NY is no different that any other state.  Take the best in the world with OH, IL, IA, they have GREAT areas and they have crappy areas just like us.  The difference is that they regulate how many hunters and tags are designated per unit based on proper deer ratios and herd health.  In NY you could have a crappy area with low deer numbers and mostly young deer and have more hunters and tags per square mile than an area that holds great deer!  It makes no sense.  And as long as it stays that way, those areas will never improve.  Antler restrictions will do jack @#$% because it is just as much about the doe that are shot as the bucks.

 

Let me bore you with simple math (because it is easier for me to rationalize math anyways):

 

Lets say you have a WMU that is 30 square miles.  The DEC determines that there are 15 deer / sq mile.  That means there are approximately 450 deer in that unit.  They also determine that the buck to doe ratio is 1:5, meaning there are 90 bucks and 360 doe.

 

Lets say a neighboring WMU is also 30 square miles.  The DEC determines that there are 50 deer / sq mile.  That is 1,500 deer on that WMU.  Buck to Doe ration of 1:5, meaning ther are 300 bucks in basically the same amount of area as the first example.

 

Does it make sense to have 1,500 tags given out for both of those units?

 

In other states they would factor the following:   They would determine the amount of deer that could safely be harvested with effecting future generations.  Lets say that is 50%.  They then determine the success rate of previous years of all tag holders, lets say that is 20% of the tags.  So, in Area 1 above, they would be ok with 45 bucks being harvested, given the 20% success rate of tag holders, they could safely give out 900 buck tags for that unit, NOT 1,500!!

 

In area 2, with the exact same example, they would give out 1,500 tags, exactly as I stated.

 

Not our state though, they will give out 10,000 if that is who comes to the counter.  Then people wonder why the hunting sucks.

 

I rest my case...again.

[dhuntley2]

Sorry i did not see your whole post about the numbers. Cut out after the first paragraph. But these areas where guys are lucky to see one buck a year have bad habitat. What are they supposed to do in these areas give no tags? Either way you still have to have the habitat to be able to hold and feed deer. There is club in Clare NY that has about 100 members on 16000 acres. Back in the day they used to kill over 100 bucks a year easily. Until about 8 years ago. Today that group is lucky to kill about 20 bucks. What changed? The loggers stopped coming in and logging big sections. In the years that they used to kill a lot of deer they were always logging somewhere on this 16000 acres. Therefore there was always regrowth coming in, thus their was enough food for the deer. The logging stopped so did the regrowth. Now the numbers are down. 100 guys are taking about 20 bucks, usually less. In your theory they should have less tags? So say they only kill 1 buck. There still will not be any more deer because the habitat just cannot hold more deer. Again without the habitat you cannot have more deer.

Edited November 27, 2013 by dhuntley2

[A Sportsman]

I like the hunting in NYS. What the heck am I missing here? And I gun hunt in a pretty tough WMU (3A). I also hunt bow on the island. Completely different areas in every sense of the word. As they should be, they are managed very diffferently by DEC. Ok great. 3A now has AR, which is dumb for much of that area, but I still go out, hunt it hard and enjoy the snot out of my time in the woods. When I have a hunt or even an entire season that doesn't go well, its on me. Not the habitat, other hunters, rough winters, or the dec. Me. And that is fine.

Also, even with 3A being tough for deer popul., I have managed 8 bucks (mostly decent or better) and a bear over the past 10 yrs of rifle hunting. Hunting one week per year. Not bragging by any stretch, but just pointing out that things are not as bad out there as some would lead you to believe.

[beachpeaz]

Sorry i did not see your whole post about the numbers. Cut out after the first paragraph. But these areas where guys are lucky to see one buck a year have bad habitat. What are they supposed to do in these areas give no tags? Either way you still have to have the habitat to be able to hold and feed deer. There is club in Clare NY that has about 100 members on 16000 acres. Back in the day they used to kill over 100 bucks a year easily. Until about 8 years ago. Today that group is lucky to kill about 20 bucks. What changed? The loggers stopped coming in and logging big sections. In the years that they used to kill a lot of deer they were always logging somewhere on this 16000 acres. Therefore there was always regrowth coming in, thus their was enough food for the deer. The logging stopped so did the regrowth. Now the numbers are down. 100 guys are taking about 20 bucks, usually less. In your theory they should have less tags? So say they only kill 1 buck. There still will not be any more deer because the habitat just cannot hold more deer. Again without the habitat you cannot have more deer.

 

I don't disagree with that at all.  We are on the same page.  My point is simple, you have 2 options:  1) manage it so the people who do get to hunt have a good experience or 2) let it ride and wipe out all the deer! 

 

right? what other choice is there?

 

If the hunting is that bad, then why not shut it down for a couple years and allow a larger, healthier deer herd to be cultivated.  Then manage the amount of permits.  It makes no sense to have 10,000 people going after 100 deer.  You end up with 9,900 unhappy people with a bad hunting experience.   It would be ok to have 500 people going after 100 deer though.

Edited November 27, 2013 by beachpeaz

[beachpeaz]

I like the hunting in NYS. What the heck am I missing here? And I gun hunt in a pretty tough WMU (3A). I also hunt bow on the island. Completely different areas in every sense of the word. As they should be, they are managed very diffferently by DEC. Ok great. 3A now has AR, which is dumb for much of that area, but I still go out, hunt it hard and enjoy the snot out of my time in the woods. When I have a hunt or even an entire season that doesn't go well, its on me. Not the habitat, other hunters, rough winters, or the dec. Me. And that is fine.

Also, even with 3A being tough for deer popul., I have managed 8 bucks (mostly decent or better) and a bear over the past 10 yrs of rifle hunting. Hunting one week per year. Not bragging by any stretch, but just pointing out that things are not as bad out there as some would lead you to believe.

 

I do too!  I have 2 great counties that I hunt (probably the best in the state).  A lot of people aren't that lucky though.

 

this conversation was more about the big picture for NYS and just ideas being thrown around

 

It is absolutely what you put into it, except in areas that are being discussed (as in my example) where the amount of hunters is unproportional to the amount of available deer.  That creates bad hunting experiences for people, espeically younger people. 

 

You don't want to start losing hunters, we already have an uphill battle with the liberal state we live in to protect our rights and legacy as sportsman!!