interesting poll

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Agree 100% but doe do not damage tree trunks and other farm plants like bucks hence the land owners want them taken out.  More about damage control than anything else.

 

 

That is why nurseries and orchards can get antlered nuisance tags. But my point is there shouldn't be nuisance tags. If they want the damage controlled, then open your lands. If you CHOOSE not to that is your choice, but deal with the damage or handle it yourself.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

it's more about a sustainable deer herd that can better deal with natural causes to their demise.  an unbalanced herd can't recover as quickly numbers wise from things like disease, predators moving in, over harvest by hunters, and harsh winters die offs.  also related to that a lot of deer is no good if the habitat can't support them, forms of native browse the deer depend on get wiped out and never recover to grow back.  now deer are more screwed going into next year with land that can hold less than the year before regardless of what management you do with deer.  also a healthier balanced herd will allow more harvest pressure year after year because they're more productive.  quantity doesn't mean quality but you'll get consumable quantity from quality.  would it be different if we said we're behind the 8 ball when it comes to education?

So what are you saying? the 1.5 year old bucks can't keep up with breeding so you need mature ones to do it?

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Yes, even within my own lifetime, I have seen extremes of the DEC being a day late and a dollar short even with all the touting of their statistical perfection and success. In the late 80's I watched deer in Honeoye dying off by the hundreds in the Honeoye yards because the herd size had been allowed to get so big ( a disgusting scene I will never forget. I also saw situations where all that was over-reacted to and large areas of the state were struck with deer "shortages". The populations seem to see-saw back and forth in what for all the world really looks like simply over-reaction in one direction, followed by over-reaction in the other direction. Yes that's one way of managing .... lol. But that is not the kind of preemptive statistical management that they are advertising. That is why I say that they have a lot more work to do on the fundamentals of population control before they start blowing resources on all the bells and whistles that hunters are lobbying for. Basics first. get it right and then move on.

I saw a similar situation in the late 70's up in Tug Hill. Hundreds or yarded deer in different states of starvation, surrounded by barkless trees

[moog5050]

That is why nurseries and orchards can get antlered nuisance tags. But my point is there shouldn't be nuisance tags. If they want the damage controlled, then open your lands. If you CHOOSE not to that is your choice, but deal with the damage or handle it yourself.

 

 

Not sure this is true all of the time Culver.  For example, I shot two doe on nuisance tags last year on a 90 acre bean field was completely decimated by the deer.  This farmer could open up his land, but the deer all filtered into the field from adjacent neighbor lands (woodlots).  There is no way he could handle the nuisance problem by simply allowing more to hunt his land or field (it would have to be a community effort).  That said, killing 5 or 10 or even 20 of the 50 plus deer that browsed on his beans nightly couldn't save his crop either.  I was told it was a $200k loss.  Seeing that type of damage made me realize why DEC allows nuisance tags in the first place. 

[phade]

Not sure this is true all of the time Culver.  For example, I shot two doe on nuisance tags last year on a 90 acre bean field was completely decimated by the deer.  This farmer could open up his land, but the deer all filtered into the field from adjacent neighbor lands (woodlots).  There is no way he could handle the nuisance problem by simply allowing more to hunt his land or field (it would have to be a community effort).  That said, killing 5 or 10 or even 20 of the 50 plus deer that browsed on his beans nightly couldn't save his crop either.  I was told it was a $200k loss.  Seeing that type of damage made me realize why DEC allows nuisance tags in the first place. 

 

And then the neighbors get pissed because they had their "bucks" picked out already and the shooting/impact got their blood boiling. They're not growing anythying but food plots, and the damage to the farm crops ends up being realized despite the efforts of the nusiance tags.

 

Farmer needs deer shot, and neighbors want the big bucks and despises the nuisance tags now because all the does are being shot and putting the deer on alert. Nobody ended up winning and most certainly there wasn't a win-win scenario possible.

 

The community effort is precisely the need.

Edited January 27, 2015 by phade

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Not sure this is true all of the time Culver. For example, I shot two doe on nuisance tags last year on a 90 acre bean field was completely decimated by the deer. This farmer could open up his land, but the deer all filtered into the field from adjacent neighbor lands (woodlots). There is no way he could handle the nuisance problem by simply allowing more to hunt his land or field (it would have to be a community effort). That said, killing 5 or 10 or even 20 of the 50 plus deer that browsed on his beans nightly couldn't save his crop either. I was told it was a $200k loss. Seeing that type of damage made me realize why DEC allows nuisance tags in the first place.

Any idea how many tags they had?

[dbHunterNY]

thinking about it and how well it'd work would be dependent on a couple things.  one thing to consider is you're letting a lottery winner take whatever buck.  so you have no control over what age class is taken.  you're instead looking at it as i want to give out this number of buck tags based on how many deer are in each WMU and how many bucks compared to doe there are. then after each season have a way to assess numbers of each to know if more or less need to be handed out.  aside from a check station there's no way to get this information.  they couldn't rely on hunter surveys because most will pass on what they observe once the season has started which is skewed info.

 

another big problem is without education and being specific in DEC's needs of us hunters as management tools, it's a temporary band aid.  once the buck population catches up a lottery might be not applicable.  as you allow more tags hunters are still taking what they see 1.5 yr old or not with no concept of cause and effect.  hunters need to know what they're doing, why they're doing it, and at some point accept it.

 

another problem that i said to ignore is hunters acceptance toward the management tool used (the lottery).  lotteries from what i hear are less excepted.  especially after you just told that land owner the pays 5 figures worth of taxes a year he can't even have a chance at shooting a buck this year.  which may or may not be ok.  depends if there's another way that works just as well that would more readily accepted.

 

 

 

 

This is what they do every year to adjust Doe take in the permit system isn't it?

 

You are doing the same thing with AR's to a lot of hunters, so what is the biggie, let them deal with it.

 

you're taking a system that isn't working the best and you're going to apply it to a smaller number of deer (now bucks versus doe) and now all the deer.  doesn't seem to me like it'd work any better and if anything it'd make things worse.

 

Season to season an AR still gives you a chance at harvesting a buck and especially after a couple years.  where as lottery could eliminate it all together for a season.  there's a difference.

 

it's of my opinion that there's better ways like ARs to fix things that will give more an opportunity or chance and thus would be probably be more excepted.  I'm making an educated assumption as lottery wasn't in the paper's poll.

[G-Man]

it's more about a sustainable deer herd that can better deal with natural causes to their demise. an unbalanced herd can't recover as quickly numbers wise from things like disease, predators moving in, over harvest by hunters, and harsh winters die offs. also related to that a lot of deer is no good if the habitat can't support them, forms of native browse the deer depend on get wiped out and never recover to grow back. now deer are more screwed going into next year with land that can hold less than the year before regardless of what management you do with deer. also a healthier balanced herd will allow more harvest pressure year after year because they're more productive. quantity doesn't mean quality but you'll get consumable quantity from quality. would it be different if we said we're behind the 8 ball when it comes to education?

my area has a quite sustainable deer population and has for over 20 years. To manage properly wmu must be smaller, this would require more personnel biologists,enforcement,ect. Trying to change the entire state to be the same is just impossible under a new state program The way it is. Every area (region of the state is different) a one buck rule only leaves more deer which is fine if habitat can support them. Most cannot. Doe tags and access to areas that need reduction is more critical,perhaps a tax break if land owners allow hunting. Every thing that is proposed is just feel good legislation. Has nothing to do with controlling p op ulation. If you want to hunt for big buck research areas they are taken nys bbc is good place to start. Some areas will never hold deer numbers hunters want or the quality.

[moog5050]

Any idea how many tags they had?

 

 

Not really but I heard it was a lot.  It was a friend of a friend.

[dbHunterNY]

So what are you saying? the 1.5 year old bucks can't keep up with breeding so you need mature ones to do it?

 

no... i didn't say anything about 1.5 year old bucks or mature bucks in that last post.  balanced just means everything is as it should be (buck to doe ratio, deer per acre for where they live, etc.)

 

young bucks do a majority of the breeding in a free ranging herd where ever you are... i believe that's right.

[Four Season Whitetail's]

my area has a quite sustainable deer population and has for over 20 years. To manage properly wmu must be smaller, this would require more personnel biologists,enforcement,ect. Trying to change the entire state to be the same is just impossible under a new state program The way it is. Every area (region of the state is different) a one buck rule only leaves more deer which is fine if habitat can support them. Most cannot. Doe tags and access to areas that need reduction is more critical,perhaps a tax break if land owners allow hunting. Every thing that is proposed is just feel good legislation. Has nothing to do with controlling p op ulation. If you want to hunt for big buck research areas they are taken nys bbc is good place to start. Some areas will never hold deer numbers hunters want or the quality.

You do realize that many of the farmers. land owner or people that lease land do that so they have big bucks and good hunting. You say doe tags and access..and i agree on both..but the places that are locked down are down for a reason. Farms that want the deer gone are now open. Farms that see $ by leasing are doing that and land owners do their thing.

I dont believe anything will change in Ny as far as land and DEC realizes that. I mean really, most guys that lease good farms of that buy their own land do so for a reason and most reasons are for bigger whitetail bucks. I m sure there are a few that think of other motives but if a poll was done i believe the bigger buck clan would prevail. People dont pay big time leases to have state land kind of hunting.

[dbHunterNY]

my area has a quite sustainable deer population and has for over 20 years. To manage properly wmu must be smaller, this would require more personnel biologists,enforcement,ect. Trying to change the entire state to be the same is just impossible under a new state program The way it is. Every area (region of the state is different) a one buck rule only leaves more deer which is fine if habitat can support them. Most cannot. Doe tags and access to areas that need reduction is more critical,perhaps a tax break if land owners allow hunting. Every thing that is proposed is just feel good legislation. Has nothing to do with controlling p op ulation. If you want to hunt for big buck research areas they are taken nys bbc is good place to start. Some areas will never hold deer numbers hunters want or the quality.

 

i think we're saying it could be a lot better and more productive.  everything in place works now to the extent deer are there and not going away.  I'm with you in that to achieve what i said everywhere you have to do things different and better suited for each area.  I'm not a fan of a 1 buck rule or lottery opposed to an AR with point AND beam length/spread for purposes of management to only protect 1.5 year olds regardless of where you are and how many deer you are around.  I'm all for allowing more flexibility to allow tags to be filled sooner with doe than later to help with capitalize on doe harvest in areas of greater opportunity.  access is tough to deal with meaning those that don't want you hunting on their land is what it is.  I'm not against promoting access though.  i think the tax break would be exploited unless it was part of multiple things in which the land owner worked with DEC (access, reporting for herd monitoring surveys maybe, etc.)  they could limit landowners participation to so many years on and then so many off to rotate opportunity for others input.  have a certain number based on size or how much additional info is required of that WMU (or WMU aggregates their working on).  same goes for areas with lower deer numbers due to poor habitat.  there should be education and emphasis/kick backs for improving habitat.  I've posted a ideas for this elsewhere.  people have to not think about big bucks first.  think about how to make deer and hunting in general better off and bigger bucks than what you've got will follow.  same as in other areas of the country where a local deer herd is hit with disease or winter die offs hunters have to realize that some years the deer don't do so well and your harvest decisions have to account for that.  when a hunter shoots a deer this year he or she's thinking about this year when they should be thinking about if i shoot what will happen to the deer next year.  lastly legislation can't be apart of it... it comes and goes with those in power and their cares for that day.  conservation efforts shouldn't die because the legislation for it ran it's course and it just didn't get voted back in.

[growalot]

 

Yes, even within my own lifetime, I have seen extremes of the DEC being a day late and a dollar short even with all the touting of their statistical perfection and success. In the late 80's I watched deer in Honeoye dying off by the hundreds in the Honeoye yards because the herd size had been allowed to get so big ( a disgusting scene I will never forget.

 Correct me I may be wrong...Wasn't that due to a particular land owner refusing to allow any hunting on his very large privately owned land at the end of the lake?...Thats how I remember it being told to me....

[nyantler]

he NY

I don't understand why every one keeps saying we're behind the 8 ball in management in nys. We have deer and a lot of them, big bucks? Having a bunch doesn't make it any easier to kill one. So the only problem I see Is unrealistic hopes of media influenced hunters IN terms of big bucks taken. I mean they watch the,shows buy all the crap they advertise they use,even buy and plant that food plot stuff they do, guess the fault lies with state management of deer cause them big ones should be falling at my feet. That's the problem imo

 

We aren't talking about the amount of deer or size and quantity of big bucks as much as overall herd management based on the different habitats in NY... there is absolutely no deer management plan in the ADKs and hasn't been for years... the only proactive plan at all in NY in the last 30 years has been with the reduction of the doe population and even that falls a bit short based on where you are in NY... the DEC has spent more time appeasing the hunters in NY and not so much time on the actual health of deer herds all across the state. In my opinion the TDM movement by most "hunting shows" has made it more difficult to do the right thing as far as the deer are concerned... in my opinion making it easier for hunters to kill deer or kill bigger deer has no place in proper deer management... if that happens as a result of good management then great! We are behind the 8 ball because we really have NO plan that could be considered good overall deer management in NY

[NFA-ADK]

I agree with the fact that deer management needs to be micromanaged by WMU or smaller.  Such a large state we live in with vast differences in sometimes short areas.  This would actually make sense so it will never happen.  Lets just enforce AR's on everyone!  Arg!

[Doc]

 Correct me I may be wrong...Wasn't that due to a particular land owner refusing to allow any hunting on his very large privately owned land at the end of the lake?...Thats how I remember it being told to me....

I guess you had to have seen it to know what was going on there. The deer that were there were not resident deer. The sheer numbers of them would tell you that. It was a massive area deer yard. So it was not anything that was under the control of any one landowner. Also, the yard extended for many miles up and down the road all the way into the outskirts of Honeoye (both sides of the lake), and most of the way down to Naples. Yes, it was centered on Emil Mueller's land, but there were hundreds of other property owners whose property was literally covered with deer. The fact is that deer numbers of the whole area were completely out of control. How much of the state was similarly effected, I have no idea, but all of a sudden the DEC reacted in a big way and began issuing unprecedented numbers of permits. Again....reactive management....nothing to do with statistical data management. It was purely another case of simple observation and necessary reactive corrections.

[mike rossi]

 

 

So they can run all the polls they want, whether it is some supposed wonderful Cornell scientific poll/survey or some newspaper running a just-for-fun poll. It all means nothing as long as they still cannot perform the most basic management function....population control. Get the fundamentals perfected, and then maybe it's time to worry about adding a few bells and whistles.

 

 I hate to see our taxes and fee money going to an agency that relies solely on polling hunters to determine wildlife management and what directions that management should be heading. How about they make their own decisions for a change based on what they were taught when they got their degrees in their fields of expertise. That's what we pay them for.

 

Fair enough Doc, but dont neglect that the professional social studies are conducted with established protocol. Also, all state agencies, not just the NY DEC collect public opinion to guide the social aspects of conservation. However, I do agree that when stakeholder opinion is allowed by politicians to over rule  "best professional judgment" and/or research findings on biological aspects, it certainly is detrimental.

 

Turning the topic back to social decisions, organizations often claim to represent the view point of the majority of sportsmen on social issues. Obviously that is not true, there are 750,000 licensed hunters in NY and the vast majority of them do not belong to organizations. of those that do belong, few participate. Of those who do participate, many go with the flow out of mere loyalty. Some say this is a broken system, Without random surveys how are the so-called "unorganized sportsmen" reached? Tier 3 of the problem, even when those unaffiliated hunters are surveyed, do they get their information and form their opinions based on what the organizations and/or magazines put out, anyway, even though they are not members? 

Edited January 28, 2015 by mike rossi

[Doc]

Fair enough Doc, but dont neglect that the professional social studies are conducted with established protocol. Also, all state agencies, not just the NY DEC collect public opinion to guide the social aspects of conservation. However, I do agree that when stakeholder opinion is allowed by politicians to over rule  "best professional judgment" and/or research findings on biological aspects, it certainly is detrimental.

 

Turning the topic back to social decisions, organizations often claim to represent the view point of the majority of sportsmen on social issues. Obviously that is not true, there are 750,000 licensed hunters in NY and the vast majority of them do not belong to organizations. of those that do belong, few participate. Of those who do participate, many go with the flow out of mere loyalty. Some say this is a broken system, Without random surveys how are the so-called "unorganized sportsmen" reached? Tier 3 of the problem, even when those unaffiliated hunters are surveyed, do they get their information and form their opinions based on what the organizations and/or magazines put out, anyway, even though they are not members? 

I have no problems with the DEC polling hunters for opinions as long as the results don't start replacing the principles of game management. And from where I sit I have to say that it sure looks like that is exactly what's happening. Far better that the DEC should be shaping public education and opinions rather than public opinions being gathered as marching orders of the DEC.

[growalot]

Thanks for the clarification Doc....Yep that was the farmer/land owners name that came up at the time...I knew they weren't "resident deer" but had heard the yarding had started early that winter, while season was still open. People had contacted the DEC to do something before it had a chance to get that bad, to no avail...but again things I heard after the fact...

[mike rossi]

I have no problems with the DEC polling hunters for opinions as long as the results don't start replacing the principles of game management. And from where I sit I have to say that it sure looks like that is exactly what's happening. Far better that the DEC should be shaping public education and opinions rather than public opinions being gathered as marching orders of the DEC.

 

I am not advocating for or against this, or even know how true it is, because  I read it on a forum, but supposedly in New Jersey, the state wildlife agency makes recommendations about regulations to a politically appointed panel of farmers and hunters. 

[Doc]

I am not advocating for or against this, or even know how true it is, because  I read it on a forum, but supposedly in New Jersey, the state wildlife agency makes recommendations about regulations to a politically appointed panel of farmers and hunters. 

We (NYS) do a little better job using a wider variety of stakeholders to man these Citizen task forces (CTFs). "Farmers, hunters, foresters, conservationists, motorists, the tourism industry, landowners, small business, etc, are all considered as potentially distinct stakeholder groups".

 

So what do these CTFs do? .... "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 DEC website has a pretty good page all about CTFs :

http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7207.html

 

[nyantler]

I think that I mentioned here last year about having talked to a couple NY wildlife biologist from the DEC about a plan to get 100% deer harvest reporting from hunters to get better numbers to help with future decisions on DMP and other population control plans. Neither biologist thought that 100% reporting would be any better than their existing statistical formulas that they use now with the low hunter reports they get currently. I found it very odd that they thought their math was as good or better than actual numbers... Not sure how that kind of mentality plays out for coming up with good information as a basis for making good management decisions... I understand that even with 100% of the hunters reporting there would be deer killed that were not reported.. but the numbers would have to be better than simply using educated guessing... I made me wonder a little about the guys making the decisions.

Edited January 29, 2015 by nyantler

[jjb4900]

I think that I mentioned here last year about having talked to a couple NY wildlife biologist from the DEC about a plan to get 100% deer harvest reporting from hunters to get better numbers to help with future decisions on DMP and other population control plans. Neither biologist thought that 100% reporting would be any better than their existing statistical formulas that they use now with the low hunter reports they get currently. I found it very odd that they thought their math was as good or better than actual numbers... Not sure how that kind of mentality plays out for coming up with good information as a basis for making good management decisions... I understand that even with 100% of the hunters reporting there would be deer killed that were not reported.. but the numbers would have to be better than simply using educated guessing... I made me wonder a little about the guys making the decisions.

we'll never get exact numbers, too many dishonest hunters...we can ask them to demand 100% participation but that's about it.......while I agree that it's the best way to get a handle on numbers, the general hunting population won't allow it to happen, unless they only give out the second buck tag and additional dmps upon having the first deer checked in, that might work. 

Edited January 29, 2015 by jjb4900

[G-Man]

I just think it's sad when hunters can make influence by not seeing anything... maybe they aren't good hunters.. I think the biggest obstical that needs to be done first is more personnel, (biologists and enforcement ) are needed before any new plan is adopted. Otherwise we are just putting the cart before the horse.

maybe joe would know how many big buck entries are added every year? I know some aren't entered but it sure seems a lot of big buck are taken every year statewide.

[nyantler]

I just think it's sad when hunters can make influence by not seeing anything... maybe they aren't good hunters.. I think the biggest obstical that needs to be done first is more personnel, (biologists and enforcement ) are needed before any new plan is adopted. Otherwise we are just putting the cart before the horse.

maybe joe would know how many big buck entries are added every year? I know some aren't entered but it sure seems a lot of big buck are taken every year statewide.

Entries vary each year... I have seen years with 150 and yearswith 400... on average maybe 200 + entries... a very small percentage of overall bucks taken, but there are many bucks that are never scored and bucks that just miss the book that would be considered big bucks by most. Still, you're probably looking at less than one half of one percent of all bucks taken would be considered big bucks.