New way to manage deer

[G-Man]

Wisconsin new management method.http://www.realtree.com/brow-tines-and-backstrap/hunters-not-biologists-establish-new-wisconsin-deer-population-goals?utm_source=Website+Subscribers&utm_campaign=3e4919d662-deer_hunting_newsletter_Baird_3-4-2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0411fab956-3e4919d662-17564121&mc_cid=3e4919d662&mc_eid=a8532c0ff9

[NFA-ADK]

Interesting, I can understand a regional approach and in some areas by county if needed but every one doing what they feel is needed is not exactly a good method unless they all collaborate together.

[Four Season Whitetail's]

HaHa. I love it .A few short years ago we were all led to believe that when CWD came to town the deer were all going to die and hunting would be wiped out.  The Agenda Failed. The proof has shown that regardless if a herd has an 80% infection rate the herd will continue to grow and adult 4 and 5 year old bucks will continue to hit the record books.

 

Now that all these years have been wasted maybe they can figure out the real problem. If a landowner has to many deer on his property then has can put the numbers where they are not wiping out crops.  Works Here.  In most places you will not see an overpopulation of deer on state land so it will be on the landowners.

[wooly]

If you've never seen a good train wreck before, you might wanna keep an eye on this,lol!

[Doc]

NYS already has this management style, and has had it for quite a few years now. See http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7207.html

 

No it is not a county by county activity, but the notion of gathering input from a variety of stakeholders, and essentially having them establish harvest targets was not invented by Wisconsin.

 

Is it a good system? I'm not sure I'm all for it. I think deer densities are being managed to satisfy the politics and economics and stakeholder biases rather than attempting to use good established biological principles to match populations to carrying capacity of habitat. It sure would be interesting to see how things might work out if the agency charged with the responsibility of managing wildlife actually acted like a competency unit trained and dedicated to that responsibility fulfilling the job as everyone mistakenly assumes they are doing. Instead they have developed a system that spreads accountability among all other interest groups of NYS residents, with actual biological principles diluted with the wants and needs of anyone who has personal axes to grind. Deer management has devolved into a competing cluster of lobbyists that hold periodic popularity contests to support their individual interests.

 

So has Wisconsin stumbled onto a new and unique management method. Not really. I really am not sure whether they have even taken a step forward with their "new" system.

[Curmudgeon]

NYS already has this management style, and has had it for quite a few years now. See http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7207.html

 

No it is not a county by county activity, but the notion of gathering input from a variety of stakeholders, and essentially having them establish harvest targets was not invented by Wisconsin.

 

Is it a good system? I'm not sure I'm all for it. I think deer densities are being managed to satisfy the politics and economics and stakeholder biases rather than attempting to use good established biological principles to match populations to carrying capacity of habitat. It sure would be interesting to see how things might work out if the agency charged with the responsibility of managing wildlife actually acted like a competency unit trained and dedicated to that responsibility fulfilling the job as everyone mistakenly assumes they are doing. Instead they have developed a system that spreads accountability among all other interest groups of NYS residents, with actual biological principles diluted with the wants and needs of anyone who has personal axes to grind. Deer management has devolved into a competing cluster of lobbyists that hold periodic popularity contests to support their individual interests.

 

So has Wisconsin stumbled onto a new and unique management method. Not really. I really am not sure whether they have even taken a step forward with their "new" system.

 

Doc -

 

I agree with you. However, if habitat health was the primary biological goal, most  deer hunters would find the numbers of deer too low. Hunters constitute the most important interest group. When I was on the last 4F Citizen Task Force, the hunters were the only group split on whether there were too many deer in the unit. (Actually a few parts of the very large unit have lower densities than the rest.)

 

A study I read from PA claimed that ideal forest health would be achieved with a maximum of 10 deer per square mile. That is one deer for every 64 acres. How many of them would be bucks? How many hunters would bother hunting with those odds?

 

For the past 3 years we are averaging about one deer harvested for each 15 acres I own. Those kind of densities are destructive yet many hunters around me still refuse to kill does. I was accused a few years back of "killing the brood stock". Obviously, it hurt my feelings.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 12, 2015 by Curmudgeon

[growalot]

 

For the past 3 years we are averaging about one deer harvested for each 15 acres I own. Those kind of densities are destructive yet many hunters around me still refuse to kill does. I was accused a few years back of "killing the brood stock". Obviously, it hurt my feelings.

 

Those kind of numbers amaze me...because I can not grasp them...out of 73 acres I was able to hunt only 38 of them and took 2 deer(that is a "bad year" ). Then again the The camp next door average 6-10 deer off 100acres...guys behind me average 4 off of 50acres...then last year 3/4 of a mile down our hill a guy with 20 acres took 11 deer...ppl behind our land across the street took 6 off of 50 acres...That right there left out at least a dozen hunter in a little over one square mile area that I don't know well enough for #'s

And I'm not even in Stueben county

[Curmudgeon]

Those kind of numbers amaze me...because I can not grasp them...out of 73 acres I was able to hunt only 38 of them and took 2 deer(that is a "bad year" ). Then again the The camp next door average 6-10 deer off 100acres...guys behind me average 4 off of 50acres...then last year 3/4 of a mile down our hill a guy with 20 acres took 11 deer...ppl behind our land across the street took 6 off of 50 acres...That right there left out at least a dozen hunter in a little over one square mile area that I don't know well enough for #'s

And I'm not even in Stueben county

 

Now imagine a biologically sound 10 deer per square mile.

 

BTW - I actually did the math - instead of guessing - and it 1 deer to just under 13 acres.

 

[dbHunterNY]

Doc -

 

I agree with you. However, if habitat health was the primary biological goal, most  deer hunters would find the numbers of deer too low. Hunters constitute the most important interest group. When I was on the last 4F Citizen Task Force, the hunters were the only group split on whether there were too many deer in the unit. (Actually a few parts of the very large unit have lower densities than the rest.)

 

A study I read from PA claimed that ideal forest health would be achieved with a maximum of 10 deer per square mile. That is one deer for every 64 acres. How many of them would be bucks? How many hunters would bother hunting with those odds?

 

For the past 3 years we are averaging about one deer harvested for each 15 acres I own. Those kind of densities are destructive yet many hunters around me still refuse to kill does. I was accused a few years back of "killing the brood stock". Obviously, it hurt my feelings.

 

we have that problem in parts of 4C hunters like seeing lots and lots of deer but don't think anything about what it's doing.  including when they complain about deer in the road, eating landscaping, and eating ag crops.

 

that PA study I wonder was what type of forest?  holding capacity varies a great deal even from property to property around here.  was it land untouched or not enhanced?  maybe the average of everything statewide (which would have a pretty large range / spread numbers wise)?

 

one deer per 15 acres is hammering them pretty good!  we usually take about 1 per 40-50 acres due to my dad's pain threshold ( due old mindset of growing up with low deer numbers) of taking too many deer.  based on trail cam surveys I've done we could take a bit more than that without exceeding 33% of adult does harvested.  also the percentage of doe we took that were 4.5+ yrs old were much too high to worry about over harvest.  don't the know the exact percentage off hand but it was probably 70+%.  no need for worry until you're closer toward 30+%.

[growalot]

 

Now imagine a biologically sound 10 deer per square mile.

 

 

Thats the other thing I have a problem with...you haven't seen the pics I post of deer here? Not talking just buck...and the type of growth and cover around I've printed...I do laugh at times when over browsing is mentioned...for I can clearly see what happens after a cut and how long that under story lasts...which is several years until...Yes the canopy grows back in...This is due to select cutting..once the canopy comes back ..of course the under story goes with it...I'm on farm land that was abandoned and now I'm on maple woods...the next door neighbor let a good chunk of their pasture land revert back and now have maple slashings 30 ft tall a ft apart and nothing underneath..why? no sun...not because of deer...just plain old no sun. Sometimes the deer getting all the blame is fallacy.

[Curmudgeon]

My recollection is that the study referred to mature forest, not ag land. Land such as yours - where it seems agriculture is being done to specifically favor deer - is a totally different thing. In other words, the deer density refers to habitat that is not being actively managed by people.

 

Someone with more time could do a search for the exact paper. It's been quite a few years since I read it.

[Doc]

Doc -

 

I agree with you. However, if habitat health was the primary biological goal, most  deer hunters would find the numbers of deer too low. Hunters constitute the most important interest group. When I was on the last 4F Citizen Task Force, the hunters were the only group split on whether there were too many deer in the unit. (Actually a few parts of the very large unit have lower densities than the rest.)

 

A study I read from PA claimed that ideal forest health would be achieved with a maximum of 10 deer per square mile. That is one deer for every 64 acres. How many of them would be bucks? How many hunters would bother hunting with those odds?

 

For the past 3 years we are averaging about one deer harvested for each 15 acres I own. Those kind of densities are destructive yet many hunters around me still refuse to kill does. I was accused a few years back of "killing the brood stock". Obviously, it hurt my feelings.

And if habitat health and a balance of deer vs habitat is trashed in favor solely of hunter satisfaction, just how long can inflated numbers continue to abuse habitat before there becomes no way at all to support a huntable population. There are limits as to how high you can artificially maintain large herds before mother nature decides to take over and do the managing for us. I will say that with the maturation of NYS habitat, it's only a matter of time before eventually somebody will not be very happy. I am not in favor of letting a bunch of laymen manage the herd. What are these biologists going to school for if they are going to shirk their bought and paid for expertise, handing such decisions over to hunters and farmers and nurserymen and motor vehicle accident lobbyists. That just ain't right. 

 

 

[phade]

One spot we're averaging 12 harvested deer annually on one parcel with about 20 acres of timber and 20 acres of fallow field - 1 tag filled for every 3 acres or so. Certainly not a normal situation, but a legit situation nonetheless in NY. Heck, I shot all 5 of mine on that property this past season and could have shot a boatload more there. There are some good bucks there from time to time, but it is downright funny sometimes hunting it with the types of deer encounters - there have been times were we can't help but laugh at it and let deer go because we're laughing so hard.

 

No idea if this level of population will keep up if we keep hammering them, but if there is a place that will still keep pumping out numbers, it's that spot if I ever saw one. Its one of those spots where if someday the access is gone, I will have felt a pretty big loss from a hunting experience. Its a magical place that best friends share and I've probably had more fun hunting that parcel than all other places combined in my life.

[growalot]

 

My recollection is that the study referred to mature forest, not ag land. Land such as yours - where it seems agriculture is being done to specifically favor deer - is a totally different thing.

 

Out of out 73 acres I have maybe 5 acres that I have literally cut out to be able to plant.  The woods I refer to as being selective cut, were not just ours but neighboring lands. Much of what is here is in fact mature hard wood lots with mature pines woods  sprinkled here and there..remember finger lakes area...

In your own words a study referred to mature forests...and mature forests have little under story because...they have mature canopies...now this was also proven to me when the gypsy moths came in and tore through this area..leaving little canopy for 2 yrs..Ask Doc...sure he remembers...we had such an influx of undergrow the woods looked like a jungle of briars...elderbrush. wild flowers and fern Management has so much more to do with a lack of under story than just deer...Someone needs to cluein NYS park foresters to this.

Edited March 12, 2015 by growalot

[Curmudgeon]

With most habitat changes there are winners and losers. Many of the losers are species that hunters never think about.

[NFA-ADK]

One spot we're averaging 12 harvested deer annually on one parcel with about 20 acres of timber and 20 acres of fallow field - 1 tag filled for every 3 acres or so. Certainly not a normal situation, but a legit situation nonetheless in NY. Heck, I shot all 5 of mine on that property this past season and could have shot a boatload more there. There are some good bucks there from time to time, but it is downright funny sometimes hunting it with the types of deer encounters - there have been times were we can't help but laugh at it and let deer go because we're laughing so hard.

 

No idea if this level of population will keep up if we keep hammering them, but if there is a place that will still keep pumping out numbers, it's that spot if I ever saw one. Its one of those spots where if someday the access is gone, I will have felt a pretty big loss from a hunting experience. Its a magical place that best friends share and I've probably had more fun hunting that parcel than all other places combined in my life.

I need the GPS location!!!  J/K Wow sounds like a really nice place Phade! 

 

Now think about that place for a moment.  Think about the topography, roads, rivers other natural boundaries.  Forest or farm lands, crops, water source, oaks, apple or beachnuts?  Bedding area?

 

Why do you think that area gets so much action?  Major trails?  Easy access from one area to another?  Food source?  I am just curious as to what makes this land so attractive to the deer.  Or it might just be an area with high density like we have in Suffolk areas?

[G-Man]

We average 18 plus deer off 200 acres every year with a target of 10 mature doe. We have done this since 93, certain places produce and some don't ,habitat and terrain is key.380 plus deer that's a lot of meat!

[phade]

I need the GPS location!!! J/K Wow sounds like a really nice place Phade!

Now think about that place for a moment. Think about the topography, roads, rivers other natural boundaries. Forest or farm lands, crops, water source, oaks, apple or beachnuts? Bedding area?

Why do you think that area gets so much action? Major trails? Easy access from one area to another? Food source? I am just curious as to what makes this land so attractive to the deer. Or it might just be an area with high density like we have in Suffolk areas?

In all honesty it is beacause of two reasons. Likely the highest property value in the county and some of the most restricted access due to a large non hunting area. That is the jist of it.

It is the perfect example of the right small acreage.

[Huntscreek]

My feeling is this year the Management has spoken and culled many this year, as it has for centuries. Mother Nature, balance it harshly & cruel as ever. If the Anti could they would ban Mother nature the cruelest death on wild life but natural. I think this year the areas affected by winter will need real research to truly balance the heard per area & county is need not a broad approach.

[growalot]

Which is why making decisions or even plans this time of year, after a bad winter has caused "problems " in the past and will in the future. They need to do fly overs NOW in the hard hit parts of the state...Just like they are doing in some towns in Thompkins... They should be monitoring some of these hunting sites and trying to gage what guys are seeing out there...I should not be reading of plans in the NYODN now, before they have a solid idea of what this winter has done to the herd and where.

Edited March 18, 2015 by growalot

[Curmudgeon]

I have a similar situation to Phade's - his being almost an order of magnitude higher than mine. The amount of land where no hunting is allowed created deer preserves where the large population is never culled.

[gjs4]

Thank God for that citizens task force on deer... Anyone know someone in that? Why isn't it an open forum for all? Oh yeah- people hate facts. We have that gray hunter organization that lobbies for a sept doe season on our behalf too- ten members but a direct line to Jeremy. What a joke. At Keats 7000 of the 600000 hunters got to tell albany what we all want for deer hunting too. Lol

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Curmudgeon]

They meet every 5-10 years and are assembled from various interests groups within each WMU. If you want to be on the next task force, contact your regional wildlife people.

[Doc]

I really don't want to be on one of these CTFs. What I want is for the DEC to do the job we pay them for and make the educated decisions that they are responsible for making. If they want to canvass all the various lobbying groups, fine. But the bottom line is that they are the trained and educated game managers and biologists. Make use of that damn expensive education and keep all the opinion mongers and special interest people  away from game management targets and decisions.

[nyantler]

I really don't want to be on one of these CTFs. What I want is for the DEC to do the job we pay them for and make the educated decisions that they are responsible for making. If they want to canvass all the various lobbying groups, fine. But the bottom line is that they are the trained and educated game managers and biologists. Make use of that damn expensive education and keep all the opinion mongers and special interest people  away from game management targets and decisions.

 

Many of our "so called" biologists are not necessarily better schooled in whitetail biology than some of the hunters that have done their own research on whitetails... most biologists knowledge come from isolated research projects in problem areas where knowledge, numbers, data can be skewed based on the intensity of the problem... I attended a deer small deer forum a few years ago at Montezuma Wildlife Refuge... with their 3 biologists present... their knowledge of whitetails you could put on the head of a pin. They knew that their was a problem of deer populations on the refuge damaging food supplies and devastating important habitat vegetation necessary for other animal populations on the refuge, but had no idea how to combat it... They were asking opinions from guys like me, if you can imagine that..lol

 

And, like always the Federal and State bureaucracy along with money problems inhibited any good resolution to the problem... the forum left me shaking my head as to what the DEC can possibly get done on their own in NY.