NY DEC: Southern Zone Deer Harvest Reports Up Slightly

[bubba]

ok so i guess the data from the nz late archery is not important.

[nyantler]

NYantler, it's simple if you buy a deer hunting license then you have to call in if you are successful or not. So you either report you got a deer or you report you didn't get a deer. Same thing for those who get DMP, you have to report if you got a doe or not. If they have no problem applying for a DMP they should have no problem calling in a report. I think most people who fill their permits don't call in so DEC makes up the numbers. If they wanted to take it a step further if you get a DMP and don't report your success or not then next year you should be denied a permit for that year. Just my opinion on how to get realistic numbers.

Dave

Very good idea.. reporting that you weren't successful.. thats why we debate these things.. funny how I never thought of that. I guess thats why I asked the question.. very good answer

[backstrapper]

What's to prevent someone from reporting they didn't take a deer even if they did?  Not sure I get the benefit of calling up to say I didn;t get one.  How tough is, call if you take a deer, if you don't call then you didn't take a deer?

Kind of like, hey call me Friday if you want to go fishing SUnday.  If you don;t call then you're not interested.  KISS Kiss It Simple Stupid (not calling anyone here stupid, it's just a saying) 

[Doc]

What's to prevent someone from reporting they didn't take a deer even if they did?  Not sure I get the benefit of calling up to say I didn;t get one.  How tough is, call if you take a deer, if you don't call then you didn't take a deer?

Kind of like, hey call me Friday if you want to go fishing SUnday.  If you don;t call then you're not interested.  KISS Kiss It Simple Stupid (not calling anyone here stupid, it's just a saying)

The "1 tag - 1 report" system is simple. It is what allows the computers to do the computing.......all the computing. Apparently we can't rely on the system as it exists now which is just what you said, "no report - no harvest". If we could rely on a "no-report" truly meaning "no - harvest" I would guess we wouldn't need all the nonsense required in coming up with a "Reporting Rate". But since the reporting rate is so ridiculously low, something is needed to make people report successful or not, so the computers in Albany can do an automatic sort and report the non offenders. This means that you have to take the time to report your results for each tag or suffer the consequences of failure to comply with the law.

It is all designed to do away with DEC personel using their rare and valuable time running from one processor to another gathering data on a few harvested deer and comparing that with how many of those actually got reported, to establish some kind of guessimated "Reporting Factor". How simple is that? By the way I would imagine that the info that they pick up at the processors about harvested deer has to be manually inputted into the computers to see how many of them were not reported.....more wasting of DEC time and money. This "Reporting Rate" research is just one big useless exercise that would not be necessary if hunters could be made to comply with the law. And even with the occasional false report, and the few hunters that will risk not complying, the results will most likely still come up much more accurate than the wasteful system used now.

In terms of people lying on their report, I guess if they want to do that, they are probably doing that now by simply ignoring the reporting law, so that's not anything new. If it is not the case already, it might be useful to make intentional false reporting an infraction. One thing is for sure, it is one thing to just let reporting slide and let the DEC spend the money to do the guesswork and quite another to report a willful lie knowing that it is in the computer and on record.

[backstrapper]

@ Doc that makes sense.  sitting back and reading your response I'd have to say I' just changed my point of view.  If someone isn't willing to take 2-5 minutes to make a call or go online to help better manage our deer herds they deserve a fine.  Most of us have the time to spend countless hours and days in the woods and on the water so we all have 2-5 minutes to help manage the herd, and the liars, well they'll always be there, nothing we can do about that.  Now I can finally make my corny joke. If you just ask, "what's up Doc?" You will find out  ;D

[Dave]

Doc, finally getting some converts.

Dave

[backstrapper]

Doc, finally getting some converts.

Dave

FYI THis convert always reports his kills, when he's lucky to get some.

[Dave]

Doc, finally getting some converts.

Dave

FYI THis convert always reports his kills, when he's lucky to get some.

Backstrapper, I believe most hunters are ethical and do the right thing, even when no one is looking. That's why I think it's up to the hunters to come up with the deer kill numbers not the DEC. The problem is the DEC never gave us a forum to do so, some may disagree and say you always had to report your success. But there was no enforcement or incentive to do so. But if there is a way to capture these numbers we would comply, like you are now doing. WE would just add reporting also that you weren't successful then we would have an accurate account of the total deer harvest. Lets just have the computer do the work for us not the DEC guess work.

Dwve

[fasteddie]

I have found it easier to report my deer kills on line versus calling by phone . I use to get frustrated at times with the calls and at times made 3 attempts to get a report to go through . The old mail in system was the easiest but would no longer suffice .

Anyway , there is no good reason not to report your kills !

[bubba]

a minute online drop down menus and you can print your report easy as pie

[jasons75]

What might work a little bit better is tagging on a 5 or 10 $ deposit when you pick up your tags.... The deposit is returned after all of your tags are reported.....Don't file your tags you forfeit your deposit.... Maybe double the deposit the next year for those that don't file.

[digthesig]

what if you cant fill them?

[jasons75]

Like doc said, you still report them as not used...

[Doc]

As a related question, I have to wonder why the DEC is not enforcing the law when it comes to harvest reports. If I understand the "Reporting Rate" calculations procedure correctly, the DEC runs around to every processor they can think of and other places where harvested deer accumulate and then compares tag data to reports not turned in to Albany to establish a statistical percentage. What happens to that list of non-reporters? According to their numbers, it sounds like the list might be pretty long. So how come I have never heard of anyone getting a ticket in the mail for not reporting? They have them caught red-handed, wouldn't you think they would be leveling a lot of fines? Have any of you ever heard of someone getting a ticket in the mail for failing to report?

Doc

[bubba]

in my area, they hand out i would say quite a few tickets according to the papers and local news website.  The paper says who go ticketed and the local site every couple weeks has court specifics.  The fines run anywhere from 100 to 200 hundred depending on the judge.  It isnt a 5 dollar dont do it again thing.  The problem here is not the reporting.  It is the deer taken illegally from the start, not the guy who does not report a take.  The funny part is the report says deer take was up and people still complain it isnt enough.  If people take a deer illegally and do not tag it or report it, they are not going to bother to report anyway.  If there was a better more effecient way of catching poachers, we would all see a big difference in deer numbers.  I will again qualify this statement by saying I am from the north and I really have no clue what hunting is.

[WNYBuckHunter]

what if you cant fill them?

You report for every tag, even the unfilled ones. You would have the option to report the tag unfilled.

I dont think the deposit would even be necessary. Make it simple, you dont get your tags next year if you dont report back on each one this year.

[Doc]

Make it simple, you dont get your tags next year if you dont report back on each one this year.

I have stayed away from the penalty part of this idea because if there is a weak point, that is probably it. I'm thinking that the DEC may be just a bit reluctant to go a system like this because they might be afraid that there may still wind up to be too many people who don't comply. Coming down too hard on them may actually start to cut into the number of hunters in a big way.

My first thought was to make next years tags contingent on the fact that you turned in this year's report just as you are suggesting. That seems to be a logical penalty. But ..... What if the number got to be too large? What kinds of criticism would they get is something like 40% (arbitrary number) of the hunters were banned from participating the following year because they didn't report. Never mind the criticism, how on earth would they accomplish their harvest with a large dent in the participating hunters. Not only that, denying the sale of licenses to a significant percentage of hunters also has income impacts on the department. It just might be that they really don't want to force the issue for fear of what the results might turn out to be.

I don't know, I am guessing on all that stuff, but there is some reason why they don't want to get involved in the "1 tag - 1 report" system, and I am wondering if it isn't related to the penalty part of the whole plan.

Doc

[Dave]

Doc, no one ever said ban anyone from hunting. I don't know where you got that from. What was suggested was that you had to report by the end of the season. Reporting meant you were successful and reporting meant that you were unsuccessful. Which you agreed was totally doable , by letting the computer do the work. Then we added that if you didn't report this year then next year when you applied for your license you would incur a penalty.  But you wouldn't be banned that's too harsh a penalty and totally not what was suggested. Doc I think that you answer so many topics you forget that you are talking about. :'( In the beginning you were in favor and as time goes by you change your mind.

Dave

[Doc]

Doc, no one ever said ban anyone from hunting. I don't know where you got that from.

Dave

I was replying to WNYBuckhunter's suggestion as shown in my previous reply and copied here below:

Make it simple, you dont get your tags next year if you dont report back on each one this year.

It actually sounds like a pretty good idea, and puts some teeth in the law. However, I was trying to look at it the way the DEC might be viewing it. I know that the DEC is now aware of the "1 tag - 1 report" idea because I have sent them that suggestion numerous times, and at least once it was on an official questionairre that I placed in the hands of one of the DEC workers at a "state of the herd" DEC public meeting where they were soliciting such suggestions. But there is something about it that they don't seem to like. I was speculating that it might be the penalty part of the concept that they are afraid of. Just guessing.

No, I am still a firm believer in the concept, but I will be the first to admit that there are some details that have to be ironed out (by better minds than mine .... lol). The toughest of those details is the penalty part for non-compliance.

[fasteddie]

Okay , report on all permits --- filled and unfilled

What would be an appropriate penalty for not reporting ?

[Dave]

Eddie, lets say there was a fine of $5.00 to start with. Once it's implemented we can see if it works. If the results are not what they expect then we could raise it the next year say $10.00. I don't think this is such a bad idea we already pay $10.00 for a DMP and there is no guarantee. Remember this is all speculation on our part.

Dave

[Doc]

Okay , report on all permits --- filled and unfilled

What would be an appropriate penalty for not reporting ?

Ha-ha, I said I wasn't going to get into the penalty part of the plan, but here I go anyway

How about this .... a two tiered penalty. One for the first 2 years that is not too high and is designed tomake hunters aware of the requirement for reporting. That one would be a nominal fine .... $25 ?? That kind of gets everyone onboard understanding that they are serious about reporting compliance and that reporting is no longer being treated as just a mere suggestion as it has been in the past. The second year, the same fine. At that point compliance should be very high. On the third year, begin to flag persistant violators and up the fine to the point where it is applying a bit of noticeable pain. That pain would grow significantly depending on the number of offenses.

[fasteddie]

First of all , I agree about the penalty for not reporting .

Now , lets say I have the bow and ML permits so just for a number I have a total of 7 deer permits . Now I don't report any . Sooooo , what would I be able to get the following year ? A $35 penalty and still get the same permits ? And , would the fine have to be paid in order to get a license ?

I realize we are suggesting and speculating but it is an interesting concept .

What about the Bear and Turkey permits ? Would they be reported also ?

[Dave]

First of all , I agree about the penalty for not reporting .

Now , lets say I have the bow and ML permits so just for a number I have a total of 7 deer permits . Now I don't report any . Sooooo , what would I be able to get the following year ? A $35 penalty and still get the same permits ? And , would the fine have to be paid in order to get a license ?

I realize we are suggesting and speculating but it is an interesting concept .

What about the Bear and Turkey permits ? Would they be reported also ?

Eddie, just to make it easy you would report the total number of deer taken. Remember this would all be computerized and for example you reported 3 deer taken they would know what permits were used. It would be right there on the screen. Also you don't want to report more kills than you have permits for. That would be a red flag and you might get a call from the DEC. Yes you would pay the fines when you purchase your license for the following season. Reporting all game would be possible, but right now just talking about the deer harvest.

Dave

[fasteddie]

Dave --- My mistake . I thought the idea was to report all tags ( filled and unfilled ) . So , if I process my own deer and don't report anything (and don't get caught) , I don't get penalized .

I would be more for reporting "all" tags filled and unfilled .

I would also wonder how much would be involved to maintain all this info on the DEC's computer system . The fines could possibly cover any additional expenses to the DEC ( if there were any ) .