antler restrictions

[mike rossi]

I would sure hope they could or the surveys that they commission through Cornell are really a waste of money

 

That is part of what does not make sense. I don't think the DEC is allowed to lobby the legislature. If that is so, then what do they do? Do they talk to the council and various federations and get them to offer resolutions? Or does the law allows the DEC to set certain classes of laws or set laws under emergencies without the legislature? Or something else?

 

I don't know about others, but I would like this made abundantly clear....

 

Edited December 30, 2013 by mike rossi

[Doc]

That is part of what does not make sense. I don't think the DEC is allowed to lobby the legislature. If that is so, then what do they do? Do they talk to the council and various federations and get them to offer resolutions? Or does the law allows the DEC to set certain classes of laws or set laws under emergencies without the legislature? Or something else?

 

I don't know about others, but I would like this made abundantly clear....

 

Great questions Mike. I have always been confused as to where lines are drawn for DEC regulation limits. I know there are some instances where a DEC decision based on management concerns might very well be in conflict with the wants and needs of landowners, businesses, and other concerned people so I understand that there has to be some kinds of checks and balances. It's just that those boundaries are not really very clear.

[mike rossi]

Great questions Mike. I have always been confused as to where lines are drawn for DEC regulation limits. I know there are some instances where a DEC decision based on management concerns might very well be in conflict with the wants and needs of landowners, businesses, and other concerned people so I understand that there has to be some kinds of checks and balances. It's just that those boundaries are not really very clear.

 

And you know what Doc,

 

I am not so sure that is not by accident either. Same people saying much, including about how you should think, but nothing that delves into the intricate details about what is being alluded to here... Its like, just do as I say, we got it all under control and in your best interest....

[nyantler]

I'm thinking the DEC wouldn't go through all the trouble of canvasing the public if they didn't have a say in new regulation changes. Politicians get involved I think because they need to make it look like they are doing something to earn their paycheck.

[nyantler]

I was just thinking that I went to a Montezuma focus group meeting about a month ago to brainstorm ideas about deer hunting and population control on the refuge. I remember them saying that no matter how good the ideas or what solutions they came up with.. all of it would have to be cleared by the federal government... they had to submit a proposal first and it would have to be accepted before it could be implemented. The process they said could take a year to get through if it got through at all.. maybe that's how it works.. the DEC comes up with the proposal based on their research and public opinion and they have to submit a proposal to be accepted by the state.

[SteveB]

Joe - I don't believe "accepted by the state" necessarily means legislative action as in passing a bill.

But I don't know for sure.

 

[nyantler]

Joe - I don't believe "accepted by the state" necessarily means legislative action as in passing a bill.

But I don't know for sure.

 

I'm not sure that's what it means either... I'm wondering if construction of a bill is again just something to justify the senators paycheck and really isn't needed... I'll bet if there is a possibility that money will somehow be involved..(fines and such) the state wants to make sure they are in the loop by making it a legislative issue. Just speculating though.

[mike rossi]

I was just thinking that I went to a Montezuma focus group meeting about a month ago to brainstorm ideas about deer hunting and population control on the refuge. I remember them saying that no matter how good the ideas or what solutions they came up with.. all of it would have to be cleared by the federal government... they had to submit a proposal first and it would have to be accepted before it could be implemented. The process they said could take a year to get through if it got through at all.. maybe that's how it works.. the DEC comes up with the proposal based on their research and public opinion and they have to submit a proposal to be accepted by the state.

 

You are talking about a federal law which has nothing to do with the NY legislature or NY state environmental conservation law. This law mandates that an EIS or environmental impact statement be completed before any hunting season is approved on a National Wildlife Refuge. A deer hunt on Montezuma NWR  does not make any changes to existing state law. In addition to the EIS, final approval of a refuge hunt would also entail a public comment period, but I am pretty sure it would not go to the state legislature.

 

 

 

Edited December 31, 2013 by mike rossi

[phade]

Unrelated, but the way they manage the deer hunting on Montezuma is horrible.

 

I've hunted other NWRs for deer and they all did the same way, $10 or $20 lottery application, specific zones assigned, and two weekend days set aside for hunters to be able to scout their said zones. Worked very efficiently.

 

No reason why Montezuma cant be the same way. The inability to scout there is ridiculous.

Edited December 31, 2013 by phade

[mike rossi]

Unrelated, but the way they manage the deer hunting on Montezuma is horrible.

 

I've hunted other NWRs for deer and they all did the same way, $10 or $20 lottery application, specific zones assigned, and two weekend days set aside for hunters to be able to scout their said zones. Worked very efficiently.

 

No reason why Montezuma cant be the same way. The inability to scout there is ridiculous.

 

It is unrelated, but I have a few quick suggestions... Did you participate in the focus meeting like Joe? If not, find out if a comment period is  open and you can send in written comment. Are you a member of the refuge friends, a group which makes recommendations and works with refuge staff (USFWS staff)?

[phade]

It is unrelated, but I have a few quick suggestions... Did you participate in the focus meeting like Joe? If not, find out if a comment period is  open and you can send in written comment. Are you a member of the refuge friends, a group which makes recommendations and works with refuge staff (USFWS staff)?

 

I hunted there once with my FIL as a change of scenery/new experience in late season. It's not within an agreeable distance for me to hunt again. I have no idea how others who would be more likely to hunt there feel about it and I am comfortable with letting them decide as they are the consumers of the hunt.

[Doc]

Ok, there may be some instances where management decisions are rightfully political. One instance that comes to mind is the decision, county by county, to allow rifles for deer hunting. Regardless of where you personally stand on that issue, I'm thinking that this is an issue that impacts all citizens, landowners in particular, and is an issue that needs in some procedure that allows public input from all concerned citizens. It is not an issue that should be completely in the hands of a biased government agency. Hence, I do believe that this is a hunting issue that is rightfully decided in the legislative process. I'm sure there are others that are truly general population issues and belong in a domain that allows public discussion and input. So, I can almost see some kind of vague guide-line that may define types of rules and regulations that need to have wider control than simply a single bureaucracy. But I'll tell you that it is truly a fuzzy and inconsistent line that is drawn that leaves me wondering just who makes the decisions and with what guidelines.

 

However, getting back to the original post, you have to ask if antler restrictions are really one of these issues that require general public participation in the decision making process. My feeling is that it is strictly a deer management decision that does not impact the general public. That sounds like a DEC decision to me and not a political decision.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

However, getting back to the original post, you have to ask if antler restrictions are really one of these issues that require general public participation in the decision making process. My feeling is that it is strictly a deer management decision that does not impact the general public. That sounds like a DEC decision to me and not a political decision.

Where does it leave us if DEC has already states it's position that it is a social issue with no biological benefit?

[Doc]

Where does it leave us if DEC has already states it's position that it is a social issue with no biological benefit?

Another great question. One might wonder if that doesn't put it in the political column. Unless they come out with some statement that AR is harmful to deer management, they are basically saying, "I don't care". That would take the issue out of the hands of the DEC and put it into the political arena wouldn't it?

 

[A Sportsman]

Not only is the line fuzzy, but it seems like there is overlap. Using AR as an example, we've seen AR come about through the bill introduction process (strictly within that one segment of 3A), and we have seen it through creation of regulations from DEC. So both are viable.

All things equal, I feel more comfortable with the DECs process rather than the bill/law process. I'd rather not involve the nonhunting public and lawmakers in decisions involving hunting regulations. And despite the fact that some regs I may not like, I still think DEC cares about hunter satisfaction.

[mike rossi]

Ok, there may be some instances where management decisions are rightfully political. One instance that comes to mind is the decision, county by county, to allow rifles for deer hunting. Regardless of where you personally stand on that issue, I'm thinking that this is an issue that impacts all citizens, landowners in particular, and is an issue that needs in some procedure that allows public input from all concerned citizens. It is not an issue that should be completely in the hands of a biased government agency. Hence, I do believe that this is a hunting issue that is rightfully decided in the legislative process. I'm sure there are others that are truly general population issues and belong in a domain that allows public discussion and input. So, I can almost see some kind of vague guide-line that may define types of rules and regulations that need to have wider control than simply a single bureaucracy. But I'll tell you that it is truly a fuzzy and inconsistent line that is drawn that leaves me wondering just who makes the decisions and with what guidelines.

 

However, getting back to the original post, you have to ask if antler restrictions are really one of these issues that require general public participation in the decision making process. My feeling is that it is strictly a deer management decision that does not impact the general public. That sounds like a DEC decision to me and not a political decision.

 

Referring to what you said above which I bolded. High deer populations exceed the social carrying capacity or tolerance of the  general public who may want herd reduction. Non shooting conservationists are concerned about the impact of high deer populations on the overall ecology, especially impacting certain non game birds and plants. Some biologists share that concern. A cultural shift from quantity to quality may be the underlining goal....

[mike rossi]

Where does it leave us if DEC has already states it's position that it is a social issue with no biological benefit?

 

 

Biological benefits:

• Untested theory: Lower deer populations increase biodiversity
• Untested theory: Yearling bucks doing the majority of the breeding cause a protracted rut

Biological pitfalls:

• Untested theory: Yearling bucks are the driving segment of the population which spread CWD. Protecting yearlings may exasperate CWD.

Social benefits:

• Increased hunter satisfaction - bigger bucks
• Increased hunter satisfaction - liberal doe harvest initially
• safer hunters when pursuing certain size bucks
• anti hunters feel "Bambi" gets to live longer
• more diverse wildlife-related opportunities such as bird watching
• reduced automobile collisions with deer
• reduced crop depredation by deer
• reduced nuisance issues regarding deer
• non resident hunting destination renowned for trophy deer

Social pitfalls:

• Decreased hunter satisfaction
• long standing cultural objection to culling does by hunters, non hunters, and anti hunters
• Less safe hunters when culling does
• long standing cultural objection to trophy hunting
• non resident hunting destination renowned for trophy deer

Note: Bold not a typo.

 

Edited January 1, 2014 by mike rossi

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Biological benefits:

• Untested theory: Lower deer populations increase biodiversity
  
• Untested theory: Yearling bucks doing the majority of the breeding cause a protracted rut
  

Biological pitfalls:

• Untested theory: Yearling bucks are the driving segment of the population which spread CWD. Protecting yearlings may exasperate CWD.
  

Social benefits:

• Increased hunter satisfaction - bigger bucks
  
• Increased hunter satisfaction - liberal doe harvest initially
  
• safer hunters when pursuing certain size bucks
  
• anti hunters feel "Bambi" gets to live longer
  
• more diverse wildlife-related opportunities such as bird watching
  
• reduced automobile collisions with deer
  
• reduced crop depredation by deer
  
• reduced nuisance issues regarding deer
  
• non resident hunting destination renowned for trophy deer
  

Social pitfalls:

• Decreased hunter satisfaction
  
• long standing cultural objection to culling does by hunters, non hunters, and anti hunters
  
• Less safe hunters when culling does
  
• long standing cultural objection to trophy hunting
  
• non resident hunting destination renowned for trophy deer
  

Note: Bold not a typo.

The bold statement would really explain the large decrease in non resident license prices for the coming year if teamed with a statewide AR decision

[burmjohn]

Where does it leave us if DEC has already states it's position that it is a social issue with no biological benefit?

Which we already know is BS

Sent from my LG-VS980 using Tapatalk

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Which we already know is BS

Sent from my LG-VS980 using Tapatalk

Wasn't trying to debate whether is is or isn't. Was stating their published position

[nyantler]

You are talking about a federal law which has nothing to do with the NY legislature or NY state environmental conservation law. This law mandates that an EIS or environmental impact statement be completed before any hunting season is approved on a National Wildlife Refuge. A deer hunt on Montezuma NWR  does not make any changes to existing state law. In addition to the EIS, final approval of a refuge hunt would also entail a public comment period, but I am pretty sure it would not go to the state legislature.

 

I understand that state and federal law processes are separate.. I was just wondering if the procedure might be the same

[nyantler]

It is unrelated, but I have a few quick suggestions... Did you participate in the focus meeting like Joe? If not, find out if a comment period is  open and you can send in written comment. Are you a member of the refuge friends, a group which makes recommendations and works with refuge staff (USFWS staff)?

 

There were representatives from all kinds of groups that would have an interest in the refuge...friends of the refuge included... basically it was just a think tank with input from all the groups.. there was nothing that wasn't discussed.. there were even non-hunting group reps there to help with human impact, social impact...etc.  You name it and it was discussed. Basically this all came about because of the impact the deer are having on the habitat which is affecting the other animals that live and visit the refuge. Mainly the destruction and over browsing of food source. Sorry for the hijack.. maybe I'll get the paperwork together I have on the meeting and post another thread

[jjb4900]

I know three old timers who decided not too come back to hunt in NY this year due to antler restrictions...they hunted here all their lives and finally decided that it's not worth the trip back to NY anymore because of the AR's..........I guess it's worth losing them just because some are trophy hunters and I expect the trend to continue.....good job NY.

[A Sportsman]

Jjb4900, was their leaving out of spite/disgust with the rule? Or was it due to thinking that there was just too small a chance at obtaining meat (assuming no doe tags, like where I hunt).

I am against AR, especially where I hunt, but can't see myself not hunting there because of it. Admittedly, It does help that I can obtain meat on long island with the bow, before rifle season.

[growalot]

I practice my own AR...so does at least one of my neighbors for sure...but I'm guessing most do....now as it stands if anyone of the grand kids these ppl have coming up into hunting wanted to shoot their first buck to get one under their belt ...for we all know what the appearance of even a small rack does to our senses...and it was a spike...they could and everyone would be happy for them...and it would give them the goal to wait for an even bigger one...helping to keep them going out year after year...AR's takes that away.

 Our daughter took a 6 pt as her first archery deer...then her first gun buck was a nice 8pt pt....she found that a bit easy and slowly her interest started to wain..though it is picked up with her interest in smoking meats and age slowing down her schedule  a bit.... but a goal was meant and she found once done it difficult to fit the hunting in...

 

I have to wonder what ppl who have hit doe crossing the road.....because they wildly out number buck and are usually in the lead...... will think when the doe population starts going down ...as everyone wants...... and buck population  and rack size increases. Then they hit a deer... but now it's not a doe but a big ole buck with lots of dangerous pts and weight behind it.......because well he doesn't have to hang around waiting for any number of doe but be on his feet running near and far chasing the few he does see before the next buck gets her ...I wonder will deer-car fatalities increase?...Just a thought...