Another DEC abortion on the way...

[dbHunterNY]

I do not agree with what they want to do But How many hunters hunt the first 15 days to start with ?.

 

Recently I usually take my share of our prescribed doe harvest that first week, unless I don't have all my tags yet.  we didn't get DMAPS until halfway through early season.

[nyslowhand]

Any discussion on this topic is healthy! BUT, If you want your opinion to be heard by the DEC, below is the link. For Part #1, just below the physical address to mail in comments is an email method of voicing your opinion.

http://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/34113.html#Part1Sections111and130

[mike rossi]

Who managed the BOW funds in NY? Is it under the OSC or the DEC?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I would assume the DEC - it has a narrow range of uses, all of which is under them. 

 

Did you mean the environmental protection fund? That is not protected from sweeping. They can get their hands on that money. 

[dbHunterNY]

I,just read that dmaps in my area may go from two to four per Hunter .

Let's see I get one doe tag in bow two reg. doe tags , can get two second round tags, two signed over and two dmaps that's nine doe tags now . Giving me two more wont help as I'm never taking 11 doe ! 2 and many years in the past 3 if I had someone to give it to is about it .

It's hard to make few do most of the work, we need to,spread it out. Many bow hunters I know and that's a lot have little to no interest is taking does , perhaps because where I hunt it's very good and at work we get tons of time off to,hunt . I understand that is not the case for many though .

Perhaps a carrot instead of a stick ? A point system for killing does , builds up after so many points , every say 6 doe during bow you get an extra buck tag. One year or six however long it takes . Must be visual proof of kill lic. Agent hangs out point after seeing deer and tag filled out . Just off the top of my head doesn't have to be exactly that.

Ok my first beer is waiting !

 

to monkey with things more those DMAPS still have annual reporting but are good for three seasons.  Not sure how we're going to deal with that.  just record keeping wise maybe and if you didn't fill the ones you got we won't give your property more.  It's been loosely encouraged to turn the unfilled tags back to DEC.  However, I find it hard to believe some will not lose them after a few years to wear having every tag accounted for will be a problem.

 

...logistics for the large chunk of land I coordinate I guess, as it's probably not a problem for smaller tracts at around a tag per 50 acres.

 

Edited May 26, 2015 by dbHunterNY

[WNYBuckHunter]

I'm reaching out to the deer biologist in my region to see what he has to say about this.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You can take a gander at the Deer Harvest Report, which was just issued not too long ago, to confirm what Culver said.

[Doc]

The units listed in Region 8 are some of the highest buck density areas in the state, with some of the best bucks in the state.

I don't think that anyone is arguing that region 8 has some pretty darn good deer hunting. I think there are a lot of areas of the state that would like their hunting to be as good as ours. But as is noted in most of this thread there is a real question about some of the ridiculous ways that the DEC thinks they can change all that through singling out bowhunters-only to fix the great hunting that we are currently burdened with.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I don't think that anyone is arguing that region 8 has some pretty darn good deer hunting. I think there are a lot of areas of the state that would like their hunting to be as good as ours. But as is noted in most of this thread there is a real question about some of the ridiculous ways that the DEC thinks they can change all that through singling out bowhunters-only to fix the great hunting that we are currently burdened with.

I think that most of us would agree that any step that they can take should be taken to achieve a good and balanced population....(big caveat here)....if they based it on sound biology, an accurate census and in the best interest of the game. I can't find anything that convinces me that one of those three are met though.  

[Doc]

I think that most of us would agree that any step that they can take should be taken to achieve a good and balanced population....(big caveat here)....if they based it on sound biology, an accurate census and in the best interest of the game. I can't find anything that convinces me that one of those three are met though.  

I really hate to say it, because I am merely an outsider looking in, but I think I am seeing another highly politicized agency that truly has far more interest in trying to keep everybody happy than anything to do with what is in the best interest of the game. When the two collide, it is the political interests that take precedence. The stakeholders rule the roost and deer be damned.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I really hate to say it, because I am merely an outsider looking in, but I think I am seeing another highly politicized agency that truly has far more interest in trying to keep everybody happy than anything to do with what is in the best interest of the game. When the two collide, it is the political interests that take precedence. The stakeholders rule the roost and deer be damned.

A shameless plug here but my involvement in the QDMA has opened my eyes to what I thought I knew and how I went about thing along this line. I know it is tough to build interest in managing a property if you don't own it, but if we all took matters into our own hands with some good boots on the ground knowledge of that property we can do what DEC can't or won't. manage the take for the property. not seeing deer with good habitat, don't fill them. don't have enough tags to remove the deer your census shows, invite a youth or a vet or a couple buddies in for a doe hunt.

[Doc]

One of the problems with land stewardship, is the huge variety of land uses, and land owner's motives. From our perspective, there is only one reason to own land and that is to hunt it. That's because we are all hunters. But when we look at the owners of most wild land, I think we would find all kinds of people, many or perhaps even most, who have no interest in hunting or deer, and wouldn't spend a dime or a second on deer management. There are anti-hunters, land speculators, non-hunting farmers, out-of-town landowners, loggers, inheritance recipients and all kinds of other people who really don't give a rip about the wildlife on their property. And then there are the residential kind of landowners that really don't own enough land to perform any kind of management, but when taken as a group, lock up a huge amount of deer habitat. So for us individually, it may make a lot of sense to manage our own deer grounds, but I'm afraid that is only an insignificant drop in the bucket.

[mike rossi]

Changing the gender ratio in the population structure will cure all the social and biological issues. Figure out how to achieve more bucks to does and much is solved. That gender ratio means BOTH greater hunter satisfaction AND lower deer densities. The obvious best way to do that is by shooting. If the hunters wont do that, then the state will either have to do it themselves or open up deer to legal market hunting. Market hunting is being discussed across the USA for some time now, and dont be surprised when your nras and scopes catch up and act like they got some fresh news scoop.... 

 

I dont know why the DEC is proposing the archers do the job. For all we know, the DEC's survey data might show that most bowhunters agree with that. The magazine/magazines and hunting forum chatter might beg to differ, but most hunters are not readers or organized, only the DEC has their contact info and can contact them or allow Cornell HDU to contact them. Or, the DEC might think the archers are actually better hunters? Or younger hunters who are going to sustain this regime longer? These days I wont rule out anything, but I wont automatically believe the DEC is out to punish the archers... 

[Doc]

It doesn't matter what any of us "believe". What matters is the evidence of action.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

 it may make a lot of sense to manage our own deer grounds, but I'm afraid that is only an insignificant drop in the bucket.

So since it can't be "all" better to do nothing?   For an analogy, the local deer population is like a pile of dry sand. keep pulling from the edges and the top will come down. As effectively as sticking your shovel right in the center of the pile? No but it will seek a level. So we pull from the property we have access or ownership of.

 

Remember the movie Field Of Dreams? If you build it they will come. Deer will gravitate to the best food and cover available. Does especially. It kind of sucks to me because one area, 8H, is one of my close and very productive spots. I have another in 8N. Both with the best potential for seeing really good bucks. It's gonna kill me to be in a stand and not be able to take a shot on a nice buck. Personally I would have rather they did this where the most impact could have been made. first week of Regular season.  

[growalot]

I'll say it again earn a buck...and if they want to keep the 2 buck tag season then make it 1:1 for the first buck tag and 2:1 for the second with an antler restriction with the doe having to be taken in those problem areas. BUT make one of those doe tags a given not lottery.  Then still allow the 2 tag lottery for those that hunt multiple WMU's. That way you keep the ppl that hunt the high doe problem areas in those areas.

Now as it stands the problem areas will have less guys attempting to get a tag there...and that will increase guys trying to get tags in non problem areas...what does that lead to in the lottery system?....Some really pizzed off hunters that did not get the tags they wanted and  a good chance that those ppl will be guy that actually live and hunt those grounds...Now you have a bunch of hunters angry with each other and really angry at one particular group of hunters...being bow. The DEC DID NOT THINK THIS THROUGH...

Edited May 27, 2015 by growalot

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I'll say it again earn a buck...and if they want to keep the 2 buck tag season then make it 1:1 for the first buck tag and 2:1 for the second with an antler restriction with the doe having to be taken in those problem areas. BUT make one of those doe tags a given not lottery.  Then still allow the 2 tag lottery for those that hunt multiple WMU's. That way you keep the ppl that hunt the high doe problem areas in those areas.

Now as it stands the problem areas will have less guys attempting to get a tag there...and that will increase guys trying to get tags in non problem areas...what does that lead to in the lottery system?....Some really pizzed off hunters that did not get the tags they wanted and  a good chance that those ppl will be guy that actually live and hunt those grounds...Now you have a bunch of hunters angry with each other and really angry at one particular group of hunters...being bow. The DEC DID NOT THINK THIS THROUGH...

Perfect comment to send in Grow.

[phade]

Just a guess, and maybe a little rooted in the number of deer skeletons I found while turkey hunting.... maybe, just maybe the deer biologists are killing two birds with one stone here.  First to crimp some more of the doe population and overall take some pressure off bucks during the early and late seasons in certain units.  This might allow buck numbers to start coming up.  These units would start to produce more bucks over time.  Its a deer biologist driven regulation.  

 

Most of the WMUs with high doe numbers also have harvest rates higher than the projected BTO. They don't want buck numbers to go up in those units.

[gjs4]

Why does it matter the harvest numbers were low when there was a substantial winter attrition due to record setting severity? It is okay to say they're wrong guys.

Won't be all that long before we are sitting for days without seeing a deer reflecting on the good ol days. The dec does not manage deer for hunter satisfaction or herd health

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Doc]

So since it can't be "all" better to do nothing?    

That is not at all what I am saying or close to anything that I said. Those that want to manage deer on their own property should be applauded for doing so. But to rely on that as a statewide game management policy simply is not realistic. Those that make deer habitat improvements and biologically sound harvest decisions are not doing it to enhance the state herd. They are doing it to enhance their own hunting isolated opportunities and chances for success, and more power to them. Those are individual voluntary initiatives and cannot be viewed as a significant or reliable wildlife management program that will have any impact on the state game management. The state still carries the responsibility for managing NYS wildlife and even though they continue to try to off-load that responsibility, they still need to have their feet held to the fire and be kept accountable for the duties they are charged with.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

That is not at all what I am saying or close to anything that I said. Those that want to manage deer on their own property should be applauded for doing so. But to rely on that as a statewide game management policy simply is not realistic. Those that make deer habitat improvements and biologically sound harvest decisions are not doing it to enhance the state herd. They are doing it to enhance their own hunting isolated opportunities and chances for success, and more power to them. Those are individual voluntary initiatives and cannot be viewed as a significant or reliable wildlife management program that will have any impact on the state game management. The state still carries the responsibility for managing NYS wildlife and even though they continue to try to off-load that responsibility, they still need to have their feet held to the fire and be kept accountable for the duties they are charged with.

I totally agree with what you are saying about pushing them for a more real and meaningful change to how they do business. My  point was not to sit idly buy. Deal with what we, as individuals, can implement while we push for something better. I see so much tossing of the hands up in the air with frustration and voicing it. I wish as much effort was put forth in trying to change things. I read these threads and wonder how many come into an arena like this and bitch but never spend the effort to even respond to public comment periods, contact their Rep.'s or even vote.    

[phade]

I totally agree with what you are saying about pushing them for a more real and meaningful change to how they do business. My  point was not to sit idly buy. Deal with what we, as individuals, can implement while we push for something better. I see so much tossing of the hands up in the air with frustration and voicing it. I wish as much effort was put forth in trying to change things. I read these threads and wonder how many come into an arena like this and bitch but never spend the effort to even respond to public comment periods, contact their Rep.'s or even vote.    

 

LOL at this post, I just PMd you...

[dbHunterNY]

I totally agree with what you are saying about pushing them for a more real and meaningful change to how they do business. My  point was not to sit idly buy. Deal with what we, as individuals, can implement while we push for something better. I see so much tossing of the hands up in the air with frustration and voicing it. I wish as much effort was put forth in trying to change things. I read these threads and wonder how many come into an arena like this and bitch but never spend the effort to even respond to public comment periods, contact their Rep.'s or even vote.    

 

last night we held a post deer season meeting for our area to allow for an open forum and those who had any concerns or complaints to let them be known.  several hundred to one thousand people are involved whether they own land or hunt.  sent out emails and posted on the facebook page, as well as spread the word.  we've been hearing of some concerns (whether warranted or not) throughout the year, yet the only "stake holders" that made an appearance where those that didn't have any concerns and thought we were doing well.  go figure.

[dbHunterNY]

One of the problems with land stewardship, is the huge variety of land uses, and land owner's motives. From our perspective, there is only one reason to own land and that is to hunt it. That's because we are all hunters. But when we look at the owners of most wild land, I think we would find all kinds of people, many or perhaps even most, who have no interest in hunting or deer, and wouldn't spend a dime or a second on deer management. There are anti-hunters, land speculators, non-hunting farmers, out-of-town landowners, loggers, inheritance recipients and all kinds of other people who really don't give a rip about the wildlife on their property. And then there are the residential kind of landowners that really don't own enough land to perform any kind of management, but when taken as a group, lock up a huge amount of deer habitat. So for us individually, it may make a lot of sense to manage our own deer grounds, but I'm afraid that is only an insignificant drop in the bucket.

 

the variety of uses of land is definitely a factor as you said.  however, if you told me the future out come of our co-op, I would've never believed you.  it truly is a melting pot of land owners from all the "walks of life" that are apart of our co-op.  so care very little about deer, hunting, and haven't so much as picked up a stick on their property.  each land owner or even "stake holder" has a particular benefit that is their driving force for participation.  Every single type of person you listed as not giving a rip about wildlife is represented in our co-op.  I'd tell you "believe me" but I know now you'd have to witness it all come to fruition to do so.

Edited May 28, 2015 by dbHunterNY

[phade]

the variety of uses of land is definitely a factor as you said.  however, if you told me the future out come of our co-op, I would've never believed you.  it truly is a melting pot of land owners from all the "walks of life" that are apart of our co-op.  so care very little about deer, hunting, and haven't so much as picked up a stick on their property.  each land owner or even "stake holder" has a particular benefit that is their driving force for participation.  Every single type of person you listed as not giving a rip about wildlife is represented in our co-op.  I'd tell you "believe me" but I know now you'd have to witness it all come to fruition to do so.

 

At what point is the lowest hole in the bucket, though?

 

Is anything really being gained if they don't care? I know co-ops are all the rage, but at a certain point, what gains are had. 

[beachpeaz]

3 things (which probably have crossed your mind, but I don't see mentioned here):

 

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.

[steve863]

3 things (which probably have crossed your mind, but I don't see mentioned here):

 

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.

 

 

It sure does look like the state is on some sort of rampage to kill off as many deer as quickly as possible for some bizarre reason if most of the things I am reading on these threads is true.  Maybe if they get all the deer killed off, there won't be ANY reasons for NYS residents to own ANY guns at that point?  Who the hell knows what they have in mind here??  I guess at this point we are all speculating what they will do for this coming season, since nothing definite has been stated yet.  I do however think that the best days of hunting in NYS are well behind us now.  NO way in hell that ANY of these proposals will make hunting BETTER in NYS in the future.  If there is anything left to hunt, it just won't be worth the effort for most to keep participating in this pastime in my honest opinion.