Really! Does only.....

[gjs4]

I can't believe how smart people will set here and play cards with the hand the deer report deals. Open your eyes guys. Most have missed the boat here.

Is the biologist trained? Who cares? They don't even know how to count the deer that are in an area they have you convinced has too many.

If we kill all the does they want- our hunting satisfaction will plummet due to no sightings. Factor in a ranked bad winter, disease, predation spike (did you note coyote season is shorter this yr?) or horrid yr for crops and it is game over time. You don't need state of the art- there is no such thing- collect data and make it happen. Math doesn't work on generalities unless you want to fudge the number of kills claiming only a fraction is reported.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Doc]

I can't believe how smart people will set here and play cards with the hand the deer report deals. Open your eyes guys. Most have missed the boat here.

Is the biologist trained? Who cares? They don't even know how to count the deer that are in an area they have you convinced has too many.

If we kill all the does they want- our hunting satisfaction will plummet due to no sightings. Factor in a ranked bad winter, disease, predation spike (did you note coyote season is shorter this yr?) or horrid yr for crops and it is game over time. You don't need state of the art- there is no such thing- collect data and make it happen. Math doesn't work on generalities unless you want to fudge the number of kills claiming only a fraction is reported.

The success of the DEC all hinges on motives and goals. I am suspicious as to who is really running the show there. I am still bothered by the implementation of CTFs and the sudden concern with finding super-ways to whack on the deer herd. I don't think it is a coincidence. There seems to be a correlation between the DEC institutionalizing financial interests into deer density goal setting, and the almost panicky fashion in which the DEC is determined to thin the herd.

 

I think your (our) concern over the runaway efforts to clear the land of deer is something that the DEC has no concern over right at the moment. They are answering to another master, and I am not sure it has anything to do with hunters or habitat. Should the deer undergo a catastrophic decline, I believe the DEC people would be slapping each other on the back, and a whole lot of political/financial interests would be ecstatic.

[Four Season Whitetail's]

Just look at all the other states that listened to their DEC/DNR and now have no deer/ cutting back seasons and even ending some seasons. We listen to ours and we will be in the same boat. Thats why we will do things our way thank you very much. Some say lawbreakers...We say protecting our intrests.

[phade]

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!!

 

That's partially true, but not proven in real-life as you alluded to with having similar harvest numbers.

 

If you look at the DMP over-issue back in 2002 or so, it took several years for the harvest numbers to climb back into a relative range that wasn't such "dire straits." One fawning season didn't fix the mismanagement.

[phade]

I can't believe how smart people will set here and play cards with the hand the deer report deals. Open your eyes guys. Most have missed the boat here.

Is the biologist trained? Who cares? They don't even know how to count the deer that are in an area they have you convinced has too many.

If we kill all the does they want- our hunting satisfaction will plummet due to no sightings. Factor in a ranked bad winter, disease, predation spike (did you note coyote season is shorter this yr?) or horrid yr for crops and it is game over time. You don't need state of the art- there is no such thing- collect data and make it happen. Math doesn't work on generalities unless you want to fudge the number of kills claiming only a fraction is reported.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

That boat has sailed, as alluded to Doc's "if it aint broke, don't fix it" response when the noise around the harvest/pop numbers was questioned a year or two ago. The DEC has shown zero appetite to discuss their methods beyond the fact they believe in them 100%.

 

I think most people right now are wanting to short term address the season changes because its an immediate impact. Pee into the wind or just pee on yourself...at least in the wind, some of it misses you.

[gjs4]

Koon Aid mustaches for everyone. Lol I won't roll over on it or play they're game of acceptance. They have an agenda and we will end up near deer less in no time. You know my track record on here for dec forecasting ( I was even laughed at less than a year ago on rifle in Genesee) and early ml then a massive decline in deer numbers.... Which in my mind they just make up for the most part anyway

Who is the NYSCC and the other special interests groups that meet with the DEC on these matters as mentioned in this weeks NYON?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[nyantler]

That's partially true, but not proven in real-life as you alluded to with having similar harvest numbers.

 

If you look at the DMP over-issue back in 2002 or so, it took several years for the harvest numbers to climb back into a relative range that wasn't such "dire straits." One fawning season didn't fix the mismanagement.

 

Who says it was an over issue? Some might contend that 2002 harvest numbers is where we need to be... depends on who you talk to... and the number of deer taken isn't necessarily related to population.. harvest numbers are dependent on many other factors as well  But, like I said ... the general population is less the problem than certain isolated areas.

[Curmudgeon]

Who says it was an over issue? Some might contend that 2002 harvest numbers is where we need to be... depends on who you talk to... and the number of deer taken isn't necessarily related to population.. harvest numbers are dependent on many other factors as well  But, like I said ... the general population is less the problem than certain isolated areas.

 

nyatler's comment is certainly true around here. The early 2000 decade DMPs and hard winters brought 4F numbers down to the point where the population was less damaging but still too high. I never stopped filling the DMAP tags during that period. Delaware and Schoharie Counties - on the other hand - had many fewer deer and hunters were frustrated. 

 

The loss of certain areas to hunting - due either to development or land purchases by those opposed to hunting - exacerbates the localization of the problem. Surveys by the 4F Task Force found fewer deer around the State Forests - as we should expect since they are heavily hunted.

 

I have great frustration with my anti-hunting neighbors who like to watch the deer. How can anyone with any environmental awareness maintain that deer should not be reduced in overpopulated areas? These people are strictly emotional and ecologically illiterate. They don't care about a host of species - animal and plant - that depend on habitat the deer alter dramatically. 

 

[phade]

Who says it was an over issue? Some might contend that 2002 harvest numbers is where we need to be... depends on who you talk to... and the number of deer taken isn't necessarily related to population.. harvest numbers are dependent on many other factors as well  But, like I said ... the general population is less the problem than certain isolated areas.

 

The DEC admitted that it was overdone in the 2003 off-season. I know this because I penned the article for NYON after talking w/Hurst and Batchellor (he wasn't in his most recent role at that time), and I forget who else.

 

That's why the DMPs were cut back well into the double digits the following year nearly statewide. They admitted that their efforts and the winter weather played a role pretty openly at that time. When the harvest goes from 308 to 180...something significant happened to cause it.

 

The DEC still quotes the 2002 winter/DMP allocation situation today in their explanation of the overall DMP process. And also, almost worthy of a slap in the face is this "DMP Trivia" they post online. Look at the year where the most DMPs where issued. Even that chart shows that the number of DMPs issued 5 years later were a mere 56% of what was issued in 2002...that chart is a good reflection on how long it actually takes a herd to rebound with active hunting and other mortality factors taken into account.

 

The DEC needs to have a pretty solid plan or we're potentially being setup for a repeat.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 2, 2015 by phade

[Larry]

How about stop whining. the DEC is exercising there authority under the 2012 -2016 deer management plan to control deer numbers.
Some of you guys think this is a state wide change it's 10 WMU's including 2 WMU's I hunt in.  These wmu's for the most part have very limited access. Will this change increase the antler-less harvest yes but not by a lot. The main problem in these units is access, not being able to kill deer.
Now the guy who thinks earn a buck is the way to go this is 10 wmu's not the whole state. Deer tags are good for the whole state with the exception of dmp's. How would they decide who would have to earn a buck and who would not.
Next the guy who wants deer densities to be given out for all wmu's. 2 things on this. 1 if the DEC gave out that information it would be a average for the whole wmu. Some parts of the wmu would have higher then average deer densities and some lower if you hunted the lower then average part of the wmu then you would say there numbers are wrong. 2 the dec dose give a season forecast out in August or September for all wmu's. IF THE DEC DID GIVE OUT DENSITY NUMBERS GJS4 WOULD NOT BELIVE THEM. He has better numbers he doesn't share.

[growalot]

How would they decide who earns a buck???..hhmmm I don't know...perhaps by looking at the UNIT # on the carcass tag....

[nyantler]

The numbers are definitely interesting as is the information you provided.. I would still contend that under normal circumstances and in most years we are putting the same number of deer back in the herd the following season as was taken out the previous season... but the 2002 incident is interesting in that.. IF population control is the objective and still trying to be achieved, and the current yearly take is around 240,000, why would the number 308,000 be that bad. Especially since 2000 and 2001 were 295,000 and 281,000 respectively. Seems to me the reason for the harvest number drop could have been due to the drastic drop in the number of tags issued after 2002 from 700,000 to 300,000... 100,000 below the current average. I'm not a statistician but seems like simple math to me and doesn't tell me that there wasn't a replenished herd size in those years, just less tags to fill.

[WNYBuckHunter]

How about stop whining. the DEC is exercising there authority under the 2012 -2016 deer management plan to control deer numbers.

Some of you guys think this is a state wide change it's 10 WMU's including 2 WMU's I hunt in.  These wmu's for the most part have very limited access. Will this change increase the antler-less harvest yes but not by a lot. The main problem in these units is access, not being able to kill deer.

Now the guy who thinks earn a buck is the way to go this is 10 wmu's not the whole state. Deer tags are good for the whole state with the exception of dmp's. How would they decide who would have to earn a buck and who would not.

Next the guy who wants deer densities to be given out for all wmu's. 2 things on this. 1 if the DEC gave out that information it would be a average for the whole wmu. Some parts of the wmu would have higher then average deer densities and some lower if you hunted the lower then average part of the wmu then you would say there numbers are wrong. 2 the dec dose give a season forecast out in August or September for all wmu's. IF THE DEC DID GIVE OUT DENSITY NUMBERS GJS4 WOULD NOT BELIVE THEM. He has better numbers he doesn't share.

 

I believe the idea behind the EAB rule would work kinda like this...

 

One buck rule for the whole state. After you kill X number of does in those 10 WMUs, you would earn an additional buck tag to be used in those WMUs.

 

As far as whining goes, the DEC has not enacted these rules yet, they are proposals, and they are asking for public comment on them. If you think they dont look to these types of forums to get an additional sense of how the hunting public feels, youd be wrong, so expressing ideas and thoughts on things here is not a bad thing to do. Writing your lawmakers and the DEC with these ideas is better yet.

[growalot]

Perhaps under normal circumstances  if there isn't a severe winter causing a kill off...that year the fawn mortality rate was unprecedented along with adult deaths. Fewer fawns were born the following spring and many units were hit very hard...the ones that the DEC considered within their estimated good #'s range. I remember that well for I reported a significant fawn kill off our camp in 8X and the following hunting season the DEC admitted they'd issued too many tags in some of the hard hit areas not expecting the winter die offs...and literally trucks with their beds filled with the orange army were driving around our area...guys that crossed the road from 8M to our side of the Vally to hunt 8N...for 2-3 years that was the case until they could get their estimated #'s back up. It took more that one season for those deer to replenish them selves. To be honest I am surprised if that wont be the case this year..

 

Yet here they are making "drastic plans" when they have yet to see what last winters results are. How many deer died and how many fawn fetuses survived...With pups being born to hungry predators how many fawns will survive out of the ones that were born? They are making changes well before they can calculate a herd change after yet another bad winter...

Edited June 3, 2015 by growalot

[phade]

The numbers are definitely interesting as is the information you provided.. I would still contend that under normal circumstances and in most years we are putting the same number of deer back in the herd the following season as was taken out the previous season... but the 2002 incident is interesting in that.. IF population control is the objective and still trying to be achieved, and the current yearly take is around 240,000, why would the number 308,000 be that bad. Especially since 2000 and 2001 were 295,000 and 281,000 respectively. Seems to me the reason for the harvest number drop could have been due to the drastic drop in the number of tags issued after 2002 from 700,000 to 300,000... 100,000 below the current average. I'm not a statistician but seems like simple math to me and doesn't tell me that there wasn't a replenished herd size in those years, just less tags to fill.

 

I totally get what you are saying, but the idea is that DMPs are issued really in response to populations within the WMUs. When fewer DMPs are issued in big sweeping amounts (ie double digit %), that means the overall herd numbers are likely MUCH lower. "Small conservative changes" is the DEC quoted verbiage on how they manage the DMPs - a few % points here or there, not 10-20% (some units were cut in half or worse) or more from one season to the next. There's a difference between maintenance of a herd and wholesale reduction of herd numbers. You are not recovering from maintenance with that type of reduction. You're recovering from too many tags being issued and filled.

 

Flip your question around: If we're consistently at 240k or so as we have been the past few years, why is this dire straits when the population/DEC allowed for a 308k harvest and several years of seasons well above the 240k we ballpark now? 

 

If we're putting in deer that we're taking out - the DEC would tell us that the herd size should be X number and that we're targeting to keep densities to that point. I don't think there is a clear target of what the statewide or WMU herd numbers should be. The dirty little secret is that they DO NOT CARE; all they manage to is overpopulation and under-population extremes. They don't care if we harvest 200k or 300k as long as the ends of the spectrum are attended to. Hunters do care, because that's a big difference in success rate and its really the basis for the disconnect between the DEC and hunters.

 

The old adage - I have no idea whether this has changed because I haven't seen anything on in it 10+ years was that 1/3 of the state's deer herd needed to be harvested to maintain it. But again, I haven't seen anything from the DEC on herd numbers, etc. in such a long time because they're really not focusing on it any longer.

[nyantler]

I totally get what you are saying, but the idea is that DMPs are issued really in response to populations within the WMUs. When fewer DMPs are issued in big sweeping amounts (ie double digit %), that means the overall herd numbers are likely MUCH lower. "Small conservative changes" is the DEC quoted verbiage on how they manage the DMPs - a few % points here or there, not 10-20% (some units were cut in half or worse) or more from one season to the next. There's a difference between maintenance of a herd and wholesale reduction of herd numbers. You are not recovering from maintenance with that type of reduction. You're recovering from too many tags being issued and filled.

 

Flip your question around: If we're consistently at 240k or so as we have been the past few years, why is this dire straits when the population/DEC allowed for a 308k harvest and several years of seasons well above the 240k we ballpark now? 

 

If we're putting in deer that we're taking out - the DEC would tell us that the herd size should be X number and that we're targeting to keep densities to that point. I don't think there is a clear target of what the statewide or WMU herd numbers should be. The dirty little secret is that they DO NOT CARE; all they manage to is overpopulation and under-population extremes. They don't care if we harvest 200k or 300k as long as the ends of the spectrum are attended to. Hunters do care, because that's a big difference in success rate and its really the basis for the disconnect between the DEC and hunters.

 

The old adage - I have no idea whether this has changed because I haven't seen anything on in it 10+ years was that 1/3 of the state's deer herd needed to be harvested to maintain it. But again, I haven't seen anything from the DEC on herd numbers, etc. in such a long time because they're really not focusing on it any longer.

 

That all makes sense now...It would be nice to see a target number of what the DEC thinks herd numbers should be... I'm not sure how there can be a good plan without a clear target objective... yet somehow they keep throwing stuff out there and getting hunters all riled up... at least let us now what the conservation objective IS...

[nyslowhand]

I've brought up my concern in another similar topic before, so here goes again. The method the DEC uses to determine the deer population and density is very inaccurate. Granted, there is no way to look behind every tree and accurately take a deer census. Deer population is based on mere surveys and input from groups that might possibly over-inflate local densities due to their own vested interests (ie; crop damage, insurance claims, etc). As I sit here scratching my head, have to wonder how do they know how many deer should be "thinned out" if they don't have a good handle on how many are actually around??? This should be done on the micro level by hunters & land stewards that actually know their area, habitat and deer population!

 

Also remember, when you're comparing the early 2000s harvest reports to the current ones, the DEC used different methods of determining actual DECAL #s and interpolating them into their harvest report #s. Fifteen years ago the assumed reporting rate was ~65%, basically adding 1/3 to the DECAL #.. Which was updated somewhere in the 2003 timeframe to the current assumption that only ~45% of deer killed were actually reported. In essence, they are more than doubling the reported # to get the annual released Harvest Report. Which reporting % assumption is more accurate.or when/how did it change..? Aren't these annual harvest #s used in subsequent years to manage the deer population?? And the # of DMPs issued?? And any proposed season dates, weapon usage and bag or sex limit changes??

 

Finally, have to call BS on the DEC's claim that all the above is based on "sound statistical methods" used in managing NYS deer populations!!!!

 

 

[sweet old bill]

They sure do not have any valid way of knowing how many deer in a area and or how many were taken in the hunting season.

 

I have been at meeting with the DEC and have asked why they do not go to a online survey when you go to buy your tags. A short listing of questions on hunting, such as

 

 did you hunt last year, how many days did you hunt, what areas, did you see how many deer, did you take a deer, what sex, if a buck how many points.

 

this could take less than 5 minutes and the info would give

a n the spot review of the areas the hunter hunted.

 

there has to be a better way, time for the DEC to go there heads out of the ____.

 

Not just say lets change the archery season, and put more black power in there season or they have to kill just doe's or must take a doe first to get a buck tag... 

[growalot]

They do that for your turkey harvest...ask how many days did you hunt your bird,weight,spur,beard length...

[Doc]

There is one thing that is clear and that is that nobody has ever found an in depth explanation from the DEC as to what the details of the statistical procedures are that they use in their management decisions. Not to sound conspiratorial about it all, but it seems like they are not understanding the importance of hunter buy-in on the credibility of their system. Why treat it all like some kind of secret? Hunters are their primary control tool that is required for population management. I'm thinking that cooperation needs to be earned by some up-front answers to all the questions that repeatedly come up in these discussions. And answers like, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", or "It is too complex a system for the layman to understand" just does not cut it anymore. Dumb it down for us if need be, but make an attempt to educate the hunters who demand credibility and not just patronizing responses, or over generalized descriptions that are very hard to believe. This attitude of "Trust us" simply is not working anymore. You want hunter cooperation, then you need DEC credibility.

[growalot]

Give them credit for consistency Doc...for it'S arrogance and not just deer management but all departments across the board in the DEC.

[Doc]

Give them credit for consistency Doc...for it'S arrogance and not just deer management but all departments across the board in the DEC.

And here are the results of those kinds of attitudes. The hunting public has gotten very sophisticated in their abilities to thwart the efforts of the DEC. It has gotten to the point where the DEC has to keep adding on more and more ridiculous regulations and a growing list of complex tricks and gimmicks in a failing attempt to force hunters to do what they want them to do. When the DEC loses credibility, they also lose the cooperation of hunters. I believe that a lot of the hunters would really take out more does if they truly believed in the necessity of it. Or at the very least they would say with some confidence that the DEC needs to be helped in their effort to thin the herd, if they truly understood the DEC methodology and believed them to be credible in their claims. A little education could sure save a lot of rules-making and enforcement nightmares. Or maybe they can't explain it all ...... oh-oh ..... lol.

[nyantler]

And here are the results of those kinds of attitudes. The hunting public has gotten very sophisticated in their abilities to thwart the efforts of the DEC. It has gotten to the point where the DEC has to keep adding on more and more ridiculous regulations and a growing list of complex tricks and gimmicks in a failing attempt to force hunters to do what they want them to do. When the DEC loses credibility, they also lose the cooperation of hunters. I believe that a lot of the hunters would really take out more does if they truly believed in the necessity of it. Or at the very least they would say with some confidence that the DEC needs to be helped in their effort to thin the herd, if they truly understood the DEC methodology and believed them to be credible in their claims. A little education could sure save a lot of rules-making and enforcement nightmares. Or maybe they can't explain it all ...... oh-oh ..... lol.

 

I think you're right about hunters being more cooperative about taking out does if they were confident that is what needs to be done in their area. Now that most hunters understand the importance of herd balance, they need to have proof that the balance is actually skewed in some way... AND the means to the solution has to make sense to them.

[gjs4]

Larry- so do you take money out of the bank without knowing the balance?

Blind faith and closed eyes are a shared lack of perception

[LetEmGrow]

I believe the idea behind the EAB rule would work kinda like this...

 

One buck rule for the whole state. After you kill X number of does in those 10 WMUs, you would earn an additional buck tag to be used in those WMUs.

 

As far as whining goes, the DEC has not enacted these rules yet, they are proposals, and they are asking for public comment on them. If you think they dont look to these types of forums to get an additional sense of how the hunting public feels, youd be wrong, so expressing ideas and thoughts on things here is not a bad thing to do. Writing your lawmakers and the DEC with these ideas is better yet.

 

But what if you jus left it at one buck?  So if you kill one buck then you have to kill two does to get another buck tag?  I can't say that I do not give some confidence to this idea.  But how many people would lie?

 

The state is broke so I do not know how they could possibly monitor this other than relying (libtards favorite word) on the guy at Walmart to show him X number of filled doe tags.

 

They need to reduce the emphasis on buck harvest and also reduce the length of time to harvest antlered deer with a firearm to cut down on the number of people that fill other peoples tags.

It is a rampant problem.  Most people will not poach a deer out of season (although far too many do).  But with that much firearm season they are people out there pursuing antlered deer who do not have the tag or will use someone else's before they use theirs.  And I best most of those deer do not get reported.