Possible Reasons for a Bad Gun Season?

[wweingart]

My opinion for seeing less deer is:

Definitely a lot of poaching. I bow hunted my property 4 weekends in a row and heard many shots at sunset every time.

Also I found the rut to be early this year

I also think the youth weekend makes a big difference. The bucks on my trail cameras were pretty much nocturnal after that. The kids should be allowed to hunt during the regular seasons just like I grew up.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Doc]

There is yet another possible reason for deer numbers shrinking. That reason is explained on the DEC page on Citizen task Forces. http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7207.html

 

The use of Task Forces have been part of a major effort to involve New Yorkers in the process of determining appropriate deer population sizes.

 

CTFs are a committee of stakeholders who are asked to contact as many people as practical from their stakeholder group in order that they may gain an accurate perspective of their groups opinion of the deer population within the WMU.

 

Task force recommendations are used to guide deer management actions in each WMU. Adult female harvest quotas, for example, are based on the relationship between the actual population trend and the population goal in each WMU. The number of Deer Management Permits (DMPs) available to hunters is, in turn, based on the adult female harvest quota each year.

 

Stakeholders are people affected by deer who have a particular concern or interest in the overall population of deer in a WMU. Farmers, hunters, foresters, conservationists, motorists, the tourism industry, landowners, small business, etc., are all considered as potentially distinct stakeholder groups. DEC deer biologists serve only as technical advisors to the task force.

 

                     -STOP-

 

Look at that list of stakeholders again. These are the people behind planned deer densities and harvest targets. Break that list down into two categories: Pro-deer and anti-deer. Perhaps you can see as well as I can the bias in that group. It turns out that the so-called “stakeholders” have been running the show since 1990. Not the DEC, but rather this small, potentially biased, committee within the DEC.

 

Perhaps we have the foxes in charge of the henhouse.

[Huntscreek]

Sure the insurance companies what them all dead. Less claims paid out.

Sent from my XT830C using Tapatalk

[Doc]

Sure the insurance companies what them all dead. Less claims paid out.

Sent from my XT830C using Tapatalk

Yes, I assume that's what they mean by the stakeholders they called "Motorists". And of course they are hoping to come up with numbers that would exterminate deer. Also, we understand what "Farmers" want as far as deer numbers (I don't blame them). And when it comes to "foresters", I'm sure they have no use for deer.

 

They have others that I have no clue about, such as The tourism industry, small businesses, conservationists. I am not even sure how they rate being a stakeholder. But the one thing that seems to stick out is that we seem to have game management by financial interest, and they are really quite blatant about that. It's peculiar that the DEC and their educated biologists are not considered stakeholders, but instead are relegated to a rather passive role as technical advisors.

[Huntscreek]

You know years back and anti once told me if we stopped hunting many would lay up the guns. So maybe it's a win win for Peta and gun control. The Truth is someone is lying about the number of deer in nys

Sent from my XT830C using Tapatalk

[Curmudgeon]

 

Look at that list of stakeholders again. These are the people behind planned deer densities and harvest targets. Break that list down into two categories: Pro-deer and anti-deer. Perhaps you can see as well as I can the bias in that group. It turns out that the so-called “stakeholders” have been running the show since 1990. Not the DEC, but rather this small, potentially biased, committee within the DEC.

 

Perhaps we have the foxes in charge of the henhouse.

 

Doc-

 

What does this mean? I have too many deer. They do thousands of dollars in damage each year. Money out of my pocket. So, am I pro or anti? I enjoy hunting them and spent many days in the Dacks walking many miles during my life. I was on a CTF recommending lowering population numbers. They were too high for forest regeneration and wildlife that depends on the understory. It was the right thing to do. 

 

Deer hunters are one group. Many - but not all - have a very narrow focus. They do not consider the well being of other native plants and animals. I was talking to a deer farmer the other day about escapees that DEC wanted to kill. They were Saskatchewan stock. The farmer found it incredible that DEC wanted to remove this source of genetic pollution from the gene pool because they had bigger antlers.

[Doc]

Doc-

 

What does this mean? I have too many deer. They do thousands of dollars in damage each year. Money out of my pocket. So, am I pro or anti? I enjoy hunting them and spent many days in the Dacks walking many miles during my life. I was on a CTF recommending lowering population numbers. They were too high for forest regeneration and wildlife that depends on the understory. It was the right thing to do. 

 

Deer hunters are one group. Many - but not all - have a very narrow focus. They do not consider the well being of other native plants and animals. I was talking to a deer farmer the other day about escapees that DEC wanted to kill. They were Saskatchewan stock. The farmer found it incredible that DEC wanted to remove this source of genetic pollution from the gene pool because they had bigger antlers.

If deer are dipping into your pocketbook, and you let that influence your opinion while serving as a CTF stakeholder, then I would call that an anti-deer bias. I think all of the financial interests that Cornell has established as members (stakeholders) of these CTFs could also be properly called anti-deer biased members.

 

In the one narrow example that you noted, that matter really has no business being a decision of laymen. At one time that decision was made by educated biologists, but now they apparently have seen fit to hand over their responsibilities to laymen who have nothing more than self-serving uneducated "opinions". It doesn't become a question of whether a single isolated decision happened to come out correctly or not. It is the whole process that is flawed. We maintain a Department of Environmental Conservation to expertly study, recommend, and administer true scientific biological principles, not to hand it all over to the financial interests businesses to establish whatever is best for their pocketbooks. The DEC was never intended to simply be a "technical advisor" to a panel of entrepreneurs. And yet, here we are. That is exactly what they have carved out as their reason for being. That entire system stinks and is simply a method of shirking their responsibility and hand the decision-making over to a panel of squeaky wheels.

[SteveB]

Sure the insurance companies what them all dead. Less claims paid out.

Sent from my XT830C using Tapatalk

Deer collision claims are a tiny fraction of their payouts - not enough for them to worry about or spend money on to reduce.

In areas of higher claims, they simply raise the comp rates to adjust for the difference. They lose no more money in high collision areas then they do in low ones.

[Doc]

Deer collision claims are a tiny fraction of their payouts - not enough for them to worry about or spend money on to reduce.

In areas of higher claims, they simply raise the comp rates to adjust for the difference. They lose no more money in high collision areas then they do in low ones.

And so, who else would be the "motorist" stakeholder that the DEC listed?

[SteveB]

Have to ask them.

Insurance companies aren't concerned about anything that doesn't effect bottom line significantly.

And deer claims do not do that.

[The_Real_TCIII]

The deer store are in Cheektowaga is right on par with last years take. The place in Mayville is down 25%

[Doc]

Have to ask them.

Insurance companies aren't concerned about anything that doesn't effect bottom line significantly.

And deer claims do not do that.

Well, I'll have to take your word for the fact that you have inside information and can speak for the insurance industry at a administration level, but I'll also have to wonder why the DEC included that "motorist" stakeholder category. Logic would tell me that the insurance industry might be a hugely competitive business where each company fights to keep every penny of premiums as low as they possibly can. That of course would provide plenty of motive to eliminate as many payouts as possible. But I also have to admit that I have not had any dealings with insurance management people, so I have no first hand knowledge regarding whether they cheerfully pay out damages for auto/deer collisions.

[hunter49]

  Might be a reason for a bad season as we sit in our stands. Sweating, sneezing, coughing, sniffling, burping, farting, smoking, drinking coffee, peeing out of the stand, moving all around & wondering why we don't see any deer. What the hell, what's up with that?  Think about it.   lol!

[SteveB]

Well, I'll have to take your word for the fact that you have inside information and can speak for the insurance industry at a administration level, but I'll also have to wonder why the DEC included that "motorist" stakeholder category. Logic would tell me that the insurance industry might be a hugely competitive business where each company fights to keep every penny of premiums as low as they possibly can. That of course would provide plenty of motive to eliminate as many payouts as possible. But I also have to admit that I have not had any dealings with insurance management people, so I have no first hand knowledge regarding whether they cheerfully pay out damages for auto/deer collisions.

Just sharing info DOC.

I know a couple underwriters and several agent/owners is all.

All said it's not even a minor concern to their agencies and companies.

One is also a beef farmer and would like all deer dead to "save" his feed crops. Have no reason to believe someone wanting all deer dead would not use his agency to help instead of telling me the industry doesn't care. He wishes they did!

Maybe he and all the others all lied to me?

But you are certainly welcome to interpret what the DEC says any way you wish and put your faith in them - I know you are a fan. ;^)

[The_Real_TCIII]

There was an insurance guy in archery talk that explained it in detail, and it made sense. I can't find the thread it was a while ago

[rj23nyr]

My opinion for seeing less deer is:

Definitely a lot of poaching. I bow hunted my property 4 weekends in a row and heard many shots at sunset every time.

Also I found the rut to be early this year

I also think the youth weekend makes a big difference. The bucks on my trail cameras were pretty much nocturnal after that. The kids should be allowed to hunt during the regular seasons just like I grew up.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

You think there is more poaching this year? Across the board I have seen people say there was low hunter turnout, but you think there were more poachers out this year? I consider that extremely unlikely.

[gjs4]

They built their winter reserves with a great mast crop during a cold fall start- less daylight and earlier rut phases and winter coats- and no reason to move now.

Factoring in two horrendous winters, ever increasing coyote numbers and people pressure it's a no brainier numbers are declining as well.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Doc]

Just sharing info DOC.

I know a couple underwriters and several agent/owners is all.

All said it's not even a minor concern to their agencies and companies.

One is also a beef farmer and would like all deer dead to "save" his feed crops. Have no reason to believe someone wanting all deer dead would not use his agency to help instead of telling me the industry doesn't care. He wishes they did!

Maybe he and all the others all lied to me?

But you are certainly welcome to interpret what the DEC says any way you wish and put your faith in them - I know you are a fan. ;^)

Well, like I said, I know nothing about the insurance industry, but just applying logic, makes me wonder why they or any other stakeholder interests that might be traveling under a "motorist" category would be a pro-deer segment of any CTF. I'm thinking cars and deer are not a very friendly coupling ..... lol. And that was my original point. So whether this "motorist" category is insurance companies or AAA or whatever, I cannot see any way that anyone representing the motorists would be pushing for more deer. And so I see that category aligning with the rest of the anti-deer financial interests on the CTFs.

 

At any rate I don't want this insurance company discussion taking away from my original point that the deer density numbers, and the remedial population-cutting antlerless tag numbers has moved under the control of a handful of financial interests, many of which have strong monetary motives to see the populations as low as the public will stand for. The DEC (the ones that our tax and fee money hires), has stepped aside and only plays an passive advisory capacity in the deer population deciding body. Deer population control doesn't really relate to carrying capacity anymore but instead is all about which financial entities can gain the most influence in these committees.

 

So whenever I hear the DEC crying about the burgeoning deer populations, all I hear is that the money interests of the state are tightening their grip within these CTFs.

[Huntscreek]

I gave reasons for why in my area. When you hunt a big area for over 35 yrs and you watch the decline in deer numbers. Nothing much in the way the land is managed

Sent from my XT830C using Tapatalk

[Huntscreek]

Has changed but the num ber of deer. It's simple there are less deer, so your odds of seeing one does to. Now each area is different so the DEC approach to manage large areas just is not working

Sent from my XT830C using Tapatalk

[dbHunterNY]

Breeding was about the same time it normally is every year.  this warm weather really killed deer movement to cold fronts, colder areas of the farms, and very first and last hour of daylight when the temps dropped.  historically shaded hollows and north facing slopes that'd get little concentrated movement were hot spots this year.  also many are starting to shoot doe versus pass them.  so there's added pressure there.  another bumper mast crop year for both soft and nut varieties.  all this caused decent seasons for those that got in closer to cover versus those who simply gun hunt fields with enough people traffic. yotes and bear weren't any worse than normal.  in some areas with local issues be it poaching, predators, or whatever that cause low deer numbers I rarely see hunters change enough harvest wise to not be shooting themselves in the foot.  nature slowly rights things though and they blaming others like youth seasons, other hunters, or other stupid reasons seems to lead to nobody being the wiser.

[Doc]

Lol ...... It's funny how hunters all became stupid this year. Maybe next year everybody will get smart again and the harvest numbers will come back up.

 

I do find all the theories entertaining, but it just might be that there really are fewer deer this year..... lol. 

[Freytown]

I don't roam the NY woods as much as here in PA, but my limited hunting in NY (6 days) told me by the deer sign that numbers are down where I hunted. The last two winters were long and deep snow, we had significant fawn losses around me (NE PA). NY had super deep snow last late OCT if I remember correctly...pretty stressful on a 5 month old fawn.

[Larry]

To the guy who said not having a one buck rule hurts the deer numbers. I’m going to come out and say it! You don’t know crap about population management. You increase or decrease numbers by killing or not kill does. This is just 8th grade biology that circle of life thing and eco-systems. I could go in to more detail but that may be above you.
What is your definition of a bad season?
Why this may be a bad season. The weather has been warm. The woods are maturing in some place and don’t provide the best habitat for deer anymore. Most land is in privet hands and it’s harder to get access to that land and to the deer. We are sitters we don’t for the most part put on drives. We don’t stay out all day those, that are the ones killing deer. Some of us worry more about what the other guy is doing then hunting or what he’s shooting. The DEC has made some mistakes. We don’t report are harvest.  

[nyslowhand]

I too am one of the many hunters in the SZ that complained about the lack of deer sightings this year! Until a friend mentioned that I sounded like a broken record, with this annual whining! WOW, the truth hurts! LOL. So I looked at a hunting journal I've kept for the past 6+yrs. Appeared to be general trend in my journal entries every year during the SZ gun & late ML seasons....frigid temps, brutal wind chill, snowing again, NO sightings from stand, jumped deer to/from stand .... Finally dawned on me that this year was no different, even with warmer temps than the past years with snow & colder conditions! There's no hunting pressure in my area, so the deer just seem to go nocturnal after the main rut. Per my annual observations; it simply is what they do! Not to say that it isn't a different situation in another area of NY!??!

 

Off topic, but as a side note addressed to the DEC; Pretty sure your doe-only restrictions in those over populated regions was a failure. Have to wait for the #s to come in for 2015 harvests to see for sure. Since the late ML season in my regions is doe-only, I won't be going out at all w/o at least the remote opportunity to take a late season buck!!

Edited December 15, 2015 by nyslowhand