Really! Does only.....

[nyantler]

nyantler...I have never had an issue filling doe tags when possible...believe my posts over the years show that...but I refuse to be told I'm only allowed to shoot doe  on my place when I go out the first 2wks. The whole your being punished because of the actions or inaction of other bow hunters does not sit well with me...especially when the DEC doesn't delegate the proper # of doe tags for that specific time period in connection to this rule change.  Tell me your requiring me to earn a buck by taking a doe in my unit.... fine..but give me that doe tag and as a given, not a "lottery". No I Do Not consider the either or tag a given for doe...

 

Do I still consider myself a moral conservationist with this attitude? Your damn skippy right I do,because I won't buckle down and fall in line in the face of BAD management decisions

I agree.. I'm talking about giving incentives for filling tags not forcing hunters into a doe only option... FYI every DEC management decision is BAD to some hunter... like you, I am doing my part as well but there are many out there who are not... if the objective is the lower doe numbers then I'm okay with whatever it takes... again my point is that hunters always talk a good game when it comes to conservation, but most hunters could really give a rats ass if it means they cant do things the way the want... probably the best reason why things never get done... God forbid that maybe hunters might have to give up something to get something. I do however question, as Doc mentioned, why there is now a fee for doe tags if the objective is to get more hunters filling DMP's... that makes no sense.

[LetEmGrow]

I think the DEC would be smart in giving up incentives to take does...

 

And Obummer was smart to take incentives not to work and discriminate against wealth.

 

NYS emphasizes buck harvest with two buck tags per year.  But that is only part of the problem.  38 days of firearms with a buck tag in your pocket and the number of people that fill other peoples buck tags is too much.  If you kill a buck with your bow then you are going to surely try to take a buck with your gun.  And if you can put it on someone elses tag - event better.

 

But success rates are of no matter.  If a guy goes out the opening day of gun season with the option to shoot nothing but a doe then he will right off the bat.  And then perhaps another.  If he has a buck tag then he says "I'll wait til the end of the season".  But by then he is no longer hunting or does not see one.

 

If you want to kill more does then stop putting everyone in a position to always have a buck tag (or someone else's).

 

But I don't drink to Kool-Aid.  I do not believe there is an over-population problem to begin with.  To believe there is to believe the DEC knows that they are doing. 

Edited May 28, 2015 by LetEmGrow

[Doc]

You know, the DEC almost has it right. They just have chosen the wrong season to implement it in. If you took the first week of gun season and made it doe only, I have no doubt that they could harvest as many does as they want. It would be similar to the old Doe Day that they used to hold just before the implementation of the antlerless permit system. That day was tremendously popular and was a success as far as whacking on the deer population. The problem was that back then they made it statewide, and it was equally devastating in places that needed herd increases as well as those that needing herd reduction. If they were really serious about taking more does, that would be the proper season to put it in. I think they know that. These guys are not stupid. But they also know there would be a deafening uproar from the gun hunting community. They also know that the bowhunting community no longer has any organizational clout and that putting in a doe only restriction can easily be forced there. Why else would they implement it in the most inefficient season. It's just an acknowledgement of which group of hunters can most easily be pushed around with the least amount of backlash.

[WNYBuckHunter]

And Obummer was smart to take incentives not to work and discriminate against wealth.

 

NYS emphasizes buck harvest with two buck tags per year.  But that is only part of the problem.  38 days of firearms with a buck tag in your pocket and the number of people that fill other peoples buck tags is too much.  If you kill a buck with your bow then you are going to surely try to take a buck with your gun.  And if you can put it on someone elses tag - event better.

 

But success rates are of no matter.  If a guy goes out the opening day of gun season with the option to shoot nothing but a doe then he will right off the bat.  And then perhaps another.  If he has a buck tag then he says "I'll wait til the end of the season".  But by then he is no longer hunting or does not see one.

 

If you want to kill more does then stop putting everyone in a position to always have a buck tag (or someone else's).

 

But I don't drink to Kool-Aid.  I do not believe there is an over-population problem to begin with.  To believe there is to believe the DEC knows that they are doing. 

 

I have to agree on the two buck tag thing, we need to get to a OBR, get rid of the freaking either sex tags, and doe tags that can be used anywhere, and start managing the does strictly by WMU. The more I read the ideas here, the more I like the sounds of phade's idea of going OTC with DMPs. Make it so that you go get 2, and if you fill them (has to be some type of check in to prove that), then you go back to get more if you want. They could just keep handing them out until the numbers they want are filled.

 

As far as overpopulation goes, I am guessing that you only think that because you are really basing it upon your area. 10 miles from you, there could be a serious problem, and youd never know it. Now, that brings up growalot's point that WMUs are really too big to effectively manage just through tag allocation. Its good that you recognize that there isnt an overpopulation on your land/area of 8N, so you can adjust your take accordingly, but one of the farms I hunt sits on the 8H/8N border, and Ill say that we have a pretty high deer density in our area, so we need figure out our take based on that, not based on whats going on in your area of the same WMU.

[phade]

I have to agree on the two buck tag thing, we need to get to a OBR, get rid of the freaking either sex tags, and doe tags that can be used anywhere, and start managing the does stictly by WMU. The more I read the ideas here, the more I like the sounds of phade's idea of going OTC with DMPs. Make it so that you go get 2, and if you fill them (has to be some type of check in to prove that), then you go back to get more if you want. They could just keep handing them out until the numbers they want are filled.

 

As far as overpopulation goes, I am guessing that you only think that because you are really basing it upon your area. 10 miles from you, there could be a serious problem, and youd never know it. Now, that brings up growalot's point that WMUs are really too big to effectively manage just through tag allocation. Its good that you recognize that there isnt an overpopulation on your land/area of 8N, so you can adjust your take accordingly, but one of the farms I hunt sits on the 8H/8N border, and Ill say that we have a pretty high deer density in our area, so we need figure out our take based on that, not based on whats going on in your area of the same WMU.

 

OTC really shouldn't be difficult to implement - even if they just stick with the same reporting structure (ie tag has to be reported as filled to be eligible for additional tags). It doesn't fix the access issue, but neither does the season changes - it just works around that problem, which really is the only thing plausible at this point. OTC gets tags into people's hands who can burn them - without messing with season structures. The idea that people have to pay to go through multiple drawings and beg/barter/steal to get consignments in units where they want deer dead now or lest we get into dire straits...just seems counter-productive at the least and downright bureaucratic when you really think about it.

 

"Hey, we want deer dead now, but we're going to limit you on getting tags and charge you to even be eligible to draw for them."

 

Seems legit.

 

Even 8H has some population disparities. Two areas are definitely down population wise of the past few seasons and one other area is always backfilled with does when you shoot one, two, or ten of them. My real concern is those pockets where the numbers are down and I suspect lower than what the DEC believes (I have nothing to go on but personal observations, so take it with a grain of salt)...if they go crazy with the doe harvest, I see those areas being really hurt similar to the early 2000s.

[WNYBuckHunter]

I agree, but the OBR, and doing away with either sex, and use them anywhere doe tags needs to be implemented along with it.

[NYBuckHunter27]

How about a Sept 15th opener just for antler-less and Oct 1st for the regular bow and the development of a program such as the HUSH program that Iowa utilizes, guys aren't going to be as involved if they have to pay for the tags to take the doe first and than pay to have it donated. As previously stated, there has to be more incentive for guys to shoot doe in these areas.

[growalot]

You can always do what I did and put a notice up on your town hall board saying you are willing to give a whole deer to anyone that wants and will use it...but they need to butcher it..you'll gut and skin if they want it skinned...I do not have to pay for my doe tags......It would be nice if gun clubs would open their walk in

coolers if they have them to early doe harvest. That would help in hot weather...Also would help for those processors that can sell deer products to others,give a donation of doe tag costs if you shoot and give the deer away to them...I don't know the legalities of such a case...just know we can't Sell deer we shoot. Can a butcher do so if the deer is just given to them?

Anything is better than the farm tags where(Not always) deer are shot and allowed to run away to die never an attempt to get it..

[beachpeaz]

3 things (which probably have crossed your mind, but I don't see mentioned here):  I already posted this on another thread, but since SO many people are writing about this, I copied and pasted it here as well:

 

1) These new regulations are aimed at bringing the Doe population down correct?  And, from what I read, they are enacting their "emergency" protocol to get this pushed through immediately without public opinion (which in most cases is required).  If it is such an "emergency" that doe populations are so high, and these need to be enacted for 2015, WHY would they chose early season bow hunters?  Bow hunters are such a negligable part of the hunting crowd and deer harvest compared to gun hunters it is pathetic.  IF it is such an issue, why not make opening weekend of gun Doe only (or earn a buck, which has been mentioned).  Doesn't anyone find that odd (and I say that sarcastically).  The answer is obvious, it is about appeasing the orange brigage and about revenue.  Period.  These regulations have nothing to do with doe harvest (or, as I mentioned, they wouldn't target bow hunters and early season only).  Imagine how many doe would be shot if the Saturday opener was Doe only, and in order to get a buck tag for the remainder of the season, you had to harvest a doe on Saturday?  The population would be regulated in 1-day, gauranteed (I am not proposing this is a good idea, but simply making a comparison to what they are going to do, verse what is practical.  proving a point that they only care about orange and green).

 

2) The heavy Doe areas (has been mentioned previously) fall in urban areas.  The DEC folks, who are glorofied liberal politians and nothing close to actual biologist have public opinion in their best interst, not the actual deer population or the hunters (and when I say public opinion, i am referring to the non-hunting crowd).  These "deer numbers" and the increased over browsing of landscaping, car accidents, property damage etc, is driving a good chunk of this.  Changing the regulations where I hunt?  It won't make a difference.  Allow controlled bow hunting (Doe only) in urban communities and you would surely significantly decrease all numbers (and a win win for hunters looking for food and communities looking for less deer).  A good example:  The town I live in is on the border of non-hunting on 2 sides.  The hunting area is well controlled by hunters and i see very few dead deer from cars.  The non-hunting areas are litered with them.  Change the regs for the entire town and the deer population will remain EXACTLY the same.  Change it to control where the deer are NOT being harvested and it is a win win.

 

3) And the big secret that wasn't published is they are looking at putting the muzzleloader season in September state wide.  If that happens, this state's hunting will be destroyed in less than 5 years.  In September, when deer have never been hunted before, you can't send out a gun brigade into the fields where they are still daytime feeding in bachelor groups.  They will be slaughtered.

 

Moral of this, you live in NYS, which is run by anti-gun, anti-hunting liberals who need revenue driven agendas to feed NYC and don't give a darn about anything else.  People just need to accept where we live.  This will never change.

 

[greg54]

How about a Sept 15th opener just for antler-less 

Temps then are way to warm for me, can easily go into upper 80's or even 90. It's still summer. The yellow jackets would love to snack on deer blood and meat that time of year.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

and than pay to have it donated.

I have probably donated a three  dozen deer anyway and have never had to pay a cent. Where are you guys taking them that you are paying?

[dbHunterNY]

I have to agree on the two buck tag thing, we need to get to a OBR, get rid of the freaking either sex tags, and doe tags that can be used anywhere, and start managing the does strictly by WMU. The more I read the ideas here, the more I like the sounds of phade's idea of going OTC with DMPs. Make it so that you go get 2, and if you fill them (has to be some type of check in to prove that), then you go back to get more if you want. They could just keep handing them out until the numbers they want are filled.

 

As far as overpopulation goes, I am guessing that you only think that because you are really basing it upon your area. 10 miles from you, there could be a serious problem, and youd never know it. Now, that brings up growalot's point that WMUs are really too big to effectively manage just through tag allocation. Its good that you recognize that there isnt an overpopulation on your land/area of 8N, so you can adjust your take accordingly, but one of the farms I hunt sits on the 8H/8N border, and Ill say that we have a pretty high deer density in our area, so we need figure out our take based on that, not based on whats going on in your area of the same WMU.

 

that's the way they do it in 4J that's bow only.  checkstation availability has to be there other wise it's a pain the butt.  can only hang on to a deer head on ice for so long and it'd be helpful info to give them a dressed weight from a processor or yourself.  you could grid off each WMU to keep record of any serious density changes within a WMU that really is only used by that region.

[Doc]

I do believe that only trained biologists can determination whether there are the right number of deer. However, there are many different influences that make our paid biologists (DEC) use different metrics than just habitat. That is where we have to be vigilant. When outside financial interests begin to determine deer population targets, instead of biological wildlife concerns, we have to be very careful that those decisions are done correctly.

 

Here's the deal ..... The DEC has the trained biologists and the management data and know-how to do as good a job at deer management as the resources that we are willing to expend will allow. The negative about that is that they are a political agency that does respond to financial/political pressures. So their recommendations do have to be watched very closely to ensure that they are not being overly influenced. How do we ensure that the proper balances are being applied? ...... That's what we have to figure out. Not whether there are too many deer or not enough deer.

[dbHunterNY]

I do believe that only trained biologists can determination whether there are the right number of deer. However, there are many different influences that make our paid biologists (DEC) use different metrics than just habitat. That is where we have to be vigilant. When outside financial interests begin to determine deer population targets, instead of biological wildlife concerns, we have to be very careful that those decisions are done correctly.

 

Here's the deal ..... The DEC has the trained biologists and the management data and know-how to do as good a job at deer management as the resources that we are willing to expend will allow. The negative about that is that they are a political agency that does respond to financial/political pressures. So their recommendations do have to be watched very closely to ensure that they are not being overly influenced. How do we ensure that the proper balances are being applied? ...... That's what we have to figure out. Not whether there are too many deer or not enough deer.

 

trained biologists aren't really required unless you do a little book work on your own.  not all state biologists for our regions have whitetail deer in there wheel house of knowledge.  that's when you hear about some aging deer at 15+ years old just from visual observation or aging a jaw bone solely based on sharpness of teeth.  we go for hikes to look for winter kill but how many go for hikes well before that to do browse surveys?  not really anything fancy but you look at browse in your woods.  know what species to look for and the order in which the general deer population prefer them.  you'll then start to have a better idea if there's too many deer for where you are.  if deer are hitting less preferred browse harder then that means there's too competition for it.  that's where the whole older timer woodsmenship stuff comes into play.  some of them already knew this stuff but we didn't have internet and such readily available info as we do today.  getting "trained" or a degree was the only meanings to learn enough of it. 

[LetEmGrow]

And Obummer was smart to take incentives not to work and discriminate against wealth.

 

NYS emphasizes buck harvest with two buck tags per year.  But that is only part of the problem.  38 days of firearms with a buck tag in your pocket and the number of people that fill other peoples buck tags is too much.  If you kill a buck with your bow then you are going to surely try to take a buck with your gun.  And if you can put it on someone elses tag - event better.

 

But success rates are of no matter.  If a guy goes out the opening day of gun season with the option to shoot nothing but a doe then he will right off the bat.  And then perhaps another.  If he has a buck tag then he says "I'll wait til the end of the season".  But by then he is no longer hunting or does not see one.

 

If you want to kill more does then stop putting everyone in a position to always have a buck tag (or someone else's).

 

But I don't drink to Kool-Aid.  I do not believe there is an over-population problem to begin with.  To believe there is to believe the DEC knows that they are doing. 

 

Amen.  Right there.  No doubt about it.  8N comprises drastically different terrain and there is no way that farm land in Northern 8N should be managed like the hills in Southern 8N.

 

I am with you

[Doc]

trained biologists aren't really required unless you do a little book work on your own.  not all state biologists for our regions have whitetail deer in there wheel house of knowledge.  that's when you hear about some aging deer at 15+ years old just from visual observation or aging a jaw bone solely based on sharpness of teeth.  we go for hikes to look for winter kill but how many go for hikes well before that to do browse surveys?  not really anything fancy but you look at browse in your woods.  know what species to look for and the order in which the general deer population prefer them.  you'll then start to have a better idea if there's too many deer for where you are.  if deer are hitting less preferred browse harder then that means there's too competition for it.  that's where the whole older timer woodsmenship stuff comes into play.  some of them already knew this stuff but we didn't have internet and such readily available info as we do today.  getting "trained" or a degree was the only meanings to learn enough of it. 

What seems to be clear, if you hang around internet forums for any length of time, is that most people feel that they are a lot more expert than they really are. Untrained armchair deer experts tend to get involved with a lot of the popular myths and folklore handed down through generations with some embellishments added with each telling (and I am not excluding myself from occasionally dabbling in that myself ....lol).

 

I am not trying to say that all those DEC employees trained and educated in wildlife biology and management and all the other associated relative courses, all graduated with honors. But I must say that if I were looking for good credible state of the art advice or answers or someone to manage my herd for me, it probably would be smarter for me to seek out someone who has at least been exposed to an organized study plan and graduated with some sort of degree in that area. It also doesn't hurt their credibility that this is their career rather than a part-time hobby.

 

So yes, I am of the opinion that the state biologists probably are a more reliable competency center when it comes to population assessments or matters regarding deer management as opposed to most of the guys dabbling in hobby deer management and offering opinions on a forum.

 

My only question is what is the metric that the DEC is applying to their educated judgments? Are they really concerned with too many deer for the habitat or instead too many deer for Joe-the-farmer or a whining landscape owner, or some other group of people with financial interests in seeing deer wiped out that they have gathered together to establish deer density goals? To say the least, and reading through the DEC internet page on CTFs, I have to say that I have some suspicions.

[Doc]

Every time I see the initialed pop deer management schemes mentioned, the big red flag goes up. AR, EAB, OBR, and all the others ... they all sound good, and somewhere in the state they may be appropriate. But are any of them really good management policy across the state or even within a WMU? Maybe, but probably not. Could any of them do more harm than good? Sure applied in the wrong area they could be exactly the wrong thing in the wrong place. So whenever we champion one of these new flavor-of-the-day management schemes, The first thing we should be thinking is what will be the effect in other parts of the WMU or state where conditions are different. Just like the doctor's creed, we need to adopt the philosophy of "Do no harm". It might be good if the DEC also adopted that motto.

[grampy]

I am all for change where change is warranted. But who makes the changes? A bunch of politically connected biologists or just a bunch of politicians with absolutely no knowledge of deer biology or numbers. The real people with the knowledge,is the hunters and landowners who have their boots on the ground. But their voices will not be heard because money and politics will silence the truest knowledgeable voices.

[Four Season Whitetail's]

I am all for change where change is warranted. But who makes the changes? A bunch of politically connected biologists or just a bunch of politicians with absolutely no knowledge of deer biology or numbers. The real people with the knowledge,is the hunters and landowners who have their boots on the ground. But their voices will not be heard because money and politics will silence the truest knowledgeable voices.

And this is why our properties are managed our way and as we see fit.

[ncountry]

http://northcountrynow.com/news/dec-proposes-reverse-declining-deer-turkey-populations-north-country-through-hunting-restrictio

We will have to be careful or this is what will happen in the rest of the state..

[ncountry]

Many of us hunters up here have been complaining about plummeting deer #s for years... Most hunters seem to trust the DEC though and continued to harvest does as long as they were issued tags for them..By the time the state caught up ..It is going to take years to recover... Any complaints in the past was ussually answered withe .."that is purely anecdotal, trust us , we know what we are doing"

Uh hu ....ok...

[Doc]

I am all for change where change is warranted. But who makes the changes? A bunch of politically connected biologists or just a bunch of politicians with absolutely no knowledge of deer biology or numbers. The real people with the knowledge,is the hunters and landowners who have their boots on the ground. But their voices will not be heard because money and politics will silence the truest knowledgeable voices.

Isn't it amazing. The DEC has this huge army of "eyes and ears" out there and still has not figured out a way to properly use them other than as a financial source. It really does seem wrong that this free resource continues to go to waste at the same time the DEC cries poverty and watches their funding dwindling more and more every year. Free manpower! Nobody can figure out a way to capitalize on that???

[nyantler]

For those that don't know... it takes just one fawning season to put back into the population of deer what was taken out the previous year. That is... given the current annual harvest numbers. Now that may not translate well in every habitat... every season, but more to the overall herd. So population control at present is going to be a concern, especially in areas where large habitats have been lost to development. That is where the greatest concern is for over-population in NY... the big problem with population control is that the DEC has not created ANY real plan for those areas except to issue more tags in that WMU... tags that cant be used in the areas with the worst population problems... the old hunting spots in that WMU that are now new neighborhoods teeming with deer!!

[dbHunterNY]

What seems to be clear, if you hang around internet forums for any length of time, is that most people feel that they are a lot more expert than they really are. Untrained armchair deer experts tend to get involved with a lot of the popular myths and folklore handed down through generations with some embellishments added with each telling (and I am not excluding myself from occasionally dabbling in that myself ....lol).

 

I am not trying to say that all those DEC employees trained and educated in wildlife biology and management and all the other associated relative courses, all graduated with honors. But I must say that if I were looking for good credible state of the art advice or answers or someone to manage my herd for me, it probably would be smarter for me to seek out someone who has at least been exposed to an organized study plan and graduated with some sort of degree in that area. It also doesn't hurt their credibility that this is their career rather than a part-time hobby.

 

So yes, I am of the opinion that the state biologists probably are a more reliable competency center when it comes to population assessments or matters regarding deer management as opposed to most of the guys dabbling in hobby deer management and offering opinions on a forum.

 

My only question is what is the metric that the DEC is applying to their educated judgments? Are they really concerned with too many deer for the habitat or instead too many deer for Joe-the-farmer or a whining landscape owner, or some other group of people with financial interests in seeing deer wiped out that they have gathered together to establish deer density goals? To say the least, and reading through the DEC internet page on CTFs, I have to say that I have some suspicions.

 

if you live around internet forums, watch TV, and read a couple articles on the internet you have enough info to talk.  it's a big difference though from truly making an effort to learn about it all, reading studies, and actually applying it to a deer herd instead of a sole effort by you and maybe a hunting buddy.  So i'll agree that there's lots of self proclaimed "experts" and the trained person with the degree is usually a safe bet in comparison.  Although, I've got multiple degrees and it's of my opinion an open mind, ambition to learn, and good resources of knowledge is most of what you need.  every piece of information should make sense though.  don't take anything for granted.  seems like work but most are excepting of the task if it's something that's even an important hobby for them.

[dbHunterNY]

Every time I see the initialed pop deer management schemes mentioned, the big red flag goes up. AR, EAB, OBR, and all the others ... they all sound good, and somewhere in the state they may be appropriate. But are any of them really good management policy across the state or even within a WMU? Maybe, but probably not. Could any of them do more harm than good? Sure applied in the wrong area they could be exactly the wrong thing in the wrong place. So whenever we champion one of these new flavor-of-the-day management schemes, The first thing we should be thinking is what will be the effect in other parts of the WMU or state where conditions are different. Just like the doctor's creed, we need to adopt the philosophy of "Do no harm". It might be good if the DEC also adopted that motto.

 

if someone uses those terms and can't give multiple pros AND cons for those being used, I would worry.  if they can but can't tell you how it applies to the deer they're hunting/managing then I'd be worried.  if they didn't have any thoughts on what effects it might cause or changes that might be made in future years then I'd be worried.  I wouldn't simply write off the conversation once one of these is brought up.  I think we're seeing that DEC is acknowledging areas within the state are different.  I'm opposed to EAB in the all but the most extremely populated areas.  this would do the most damage when applied to the wrong area, I could lower the population well below what's needed, decreasing opportunity, and creating law breakers.