Deer Population

[dbHunterNY]

At http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/47738.html you can find the real DEC attitude on the perfection of their systems.

 

Quote:

“Some people have suggested that we should change our system to require reports from all hunters, successful or not, and that non-reporters should be denied a license the next year. These ideas and others have been discussed within DEC in the past, however all harvest reporting scenarios have both positive and negative aspects. Across the nation, a variety of methods are used to estimate annual deer harvests including use of mandatory check stations and deer check at meat lockers, mail questionnaires, report cards, telephone surveys, and telephone and internet reporting. No one method is perfect, and all state agencies must deal with incomplete reporting.

 

Ultimately, the adage, "if it's not broken, don't fix it," comes into play. Suggestions to change DEC's harvest reporting system, while well intentioned, typically stem from a misunderstanding of how the system works and a belief that our current system is not sufficient for accurate harvest estimates or proper deer management. This simply is not the case.”

 

Now, tell me that they are not saying that their system is as near-perfect as possible and doesn't require changes. I love that last paragraph that basically tries to discourage any suggestions from the ignorant "well intentioned" outsiders who are simply too uneducated and stupid to understand the finely honed and perfected systems used by the DEC. Yes, I do call that arrogance! And as you correctly indicated, "it's getting the data for the foundation of everything you do next season" and I would think that it deserves a more serious attitude than these arrogant comments show that the DEC has toward any suggestions for improvements.

 

 

yea I read it.  you left out parts that scream BS though...

 

"While the reporting rate is lower than we would prefer, the combination of harvest reports and more than 15,000 deer checked by DEC staff in the field, yielded a 2006 harvest estimate that was statistically accurate to within ±1.9%. Ten years ago, when reporting rates averaged 60-65%, harvest estimates were accurate to within 1-2%. Our accuracy has not changed, because the methodology and statistics involved are sound. ..."

 

if those percentages were truly what they are then, DEC would care less if reporting rate was higher because it wouldn't make any difference.  they gave percentages as a state average not an average percentage across the state for each WMU.  therefore, some WMUs are reporting more and some less (than 45%).  i hope it was just written incorrectly and really it was the later.  as well as it the collected data should've been from areas throughout each WMU.  that would account for a big factor in error (more than 2%).  I agree with them that the math and "system" is probably sound given data versus data out.  however, it's extrapolated solutions based on original data.  you don't need all reporting for a good enough estimate, sure, but once the sample size gets small enough any error is compounded.

 

"Our concern with current reporting rates is not the resulting quality of our harvest estimates. Rather, we are concerned that low reporting rates may reflect a declining awareness among hunters about the important role they have in the game management process."

 

the above is BS too and not an answer to my call out above.  notice they said current reporting rates aren't a concern.  yet they then say involvement like reporting plays an important role in the game management process.  it's because they're getting by now but if it gets any worse they'll really be in the dark.  they need to sound confident.  however, it's beyond contestation that crappy or insufficient data in means crappy or insufficient data out.  it doesn't matter how solid or sound their means to get the data is.

 

 i stand by what i said with them putting up a front.  maybe there's some arrogance there.  they've used the same system for decades now.  so I'm sure they know its limitations.

[Cory]

In my perfect world I would eliminate doe tags statewide for 3 years and have a permanent statewide rule that only bucks 8 points or better be taken. Our deer heards would be rich and healthy while we would let the bucks grow. I know people say you cant eat horns but how excited would you be that you finally got that 10 point you've dreamed about instead of that 4 point.

[jjb4900]

In my perfect world I would eliminate doe tags statewide for 3 years and have a permanent statewide rule that only bucks 8 points or better be taken. Our deer heards would be rich and healthy while we would let the bucks grow. I know people say you cant eat horns but how excited would you be that you finally got that 10 point you've dreamed about instead of that 4 point.

that's the solution we've been waiting for!!..........

[DirtTime]

Sometimes development helps. Sometimes! Others, it hurts hunters and deer. If anyone is familiar with the Albany Pine Bush, they have literally decimated two areas in there. I get that sometimes it helps, but that help comes at a cost. You get people who don't want hunting complaining that deer are eating their begonias. Maybe those area do have an over population.

Now take the actual woods. Where the closest house is 15 miles away. Deer populations are far different, and deer will move around from one place to another, especially when they have a predator hunting them. I don't think the population is down, or up in those areas. I think deer are just moving.

 

DEC does what it can, but aren't they just like any other service? They still have to go through channels to get things approved don't they? Everyone has to do their part. Not everything can be put on DEC shoulders. There are a ton of threads on here that are about the same issues, just the title is worded differently. The replies are always the same. If you know about deer populations in your area, and they are up or down, why not send an emial to DEC letting them know? That would make some sense and maybe even help the situation. Wouldn't it?

[gjs4]

I have emailed and called the DEC a bunch of times and it confirmed what many would suspect; they don't give a chit.

[DirtTime]

I have emailed and called the DEC a bunch of times and it confirmed what many would suspect; they don't give a chit.

 

So, then I don't get it. Why keep bringing up topics about things that don't/won't change? Isn't that kind of like watching paint dry and then asking yourself why you did it?

[Doc]

yea I read it.  you left out parts that scream BS though...

 

"While the reporting rate is lower than we would prefer, the combination of harvest reports and more than 15,000 deer checked by DEC staff in the field, yielded a 2006 harvest estimate that was statistically accurate to within ±1.9%. Ten years ago, when reporting rates averaged 60-65%, harvest estimates were accurate to within 1-2%. Our accuracy has not changed, because the methodology and statistics involved are sound. ..."

 

if those percentages were truly what they are then, DEC would care less if reporting rate was higher because it wouldn't make any difference.  they gave percentages as a state average not an average percentage across the state for each WMU.  therefore, some WMUs are reporting more and some less (than 45%).  i hope it was just written incorrectly and really it was the later.  as well as it the collected data should've been from areas throughout each WMU.  that would account for a big factor in error (more than 2%).  I agree with them that the math and "system" is probably sound given data versus data out.  however, it's extrapolated solutions based on original data.  you don't need all reporting for a good enough estimate, sure, but once the sample size gets small enough any error is compounded.

 

"Our concern with current reporting rates is not the resulting quality of our harvest estimates. Rather, we are concerned that low reporting rates may reflect a declining awareness among hunters about the important role they have in the game management process."

 

the above is BS too and not an answer to my call out above.  notice they said current reporting rates aren't a concern.  yet they then say involvement like reporting plays an important role in the game management process.  it's because they're getting by now but if it gets any worse they'll really be in the dark.  they need to sound confident.  however, it's beyond contestation that crappy or insufficient data in means crappy or insufficient data out.  it doesn't matter how solid or sound their means to get the data is.

 

 i stand by what i said with them putting up a front.  maybe there's some arrogance there.  they've used the same system for decades now.  so I'm sure they know its limitations.

 

An editorial in New York Outdoor News put it best when they said that the DEC suffers from a "crisis of credibility", which is what I think you are alluding to. There are certain statements being made all the time that really sound like they are tap-dancing all around the actual truth. I think that most hunters are starting to catch on to that, and are beginning to be quite vocal about it. As I said in a prior reply, when the hunters don't believe or trust what the DEC is saying, they lose all cooperation. As it turns out, the hunters are an essential and vital tool in game management, and without their cooperation, whatever the DEC wants to do simply turns to garbage.

 

I think the DEC has a lot of fence-mending to do with the hunters. And I am not talking about taking polls and doing whatever hunters want. I am talking about educational, no B.S., explanations of their systems, including how they verify their statistical analysis. They need to re-establish trust and credibility and perhaps somewhere along the line pick up some info themselves as to where their systems might be lacking and need improvement. Stop the stone-walling and the cutsey little remarks like, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Never mind the "Relax and trust me" attitude and start explaining why their systems aren't the secret black magic and collection of faulty guestimates, concocted factors and compounding applications of bad info after bad info, year after year, that they appear to be.

[Doc]

If you know about deer populations in your area, and they are up or down, why not send an emial to DEC letting them know? That would make some sense and maybe even help the situation. Wouldn't it?

You comments on the size of the deer herd is simply hear-say that doesn't rely on the mysterious world of statistics. They don't care about your observations. You and I are simply untrained observers who do not have the ability to know what we are seeing. They are the experts, and they have no interest in hearing from those who actually walk out into the woods. If it can't be reduced to ones and zeros, it is worthless noise.

 

Seriously, you would have thought after all these decades, someone in the DEC would have figured out how to gather and use the inputs of those thousands of willing observers. If for no other reason than to verify their statistical analysis that feeds their management policies. Maybe just a little something that might tell them when they are encountering statistical drift and results are not what they are supposed to be.

 

But then that would be admitting a slight dent in their façade of perfection.

[orion]

But does it matter what the population is? Do they care?

 

Or do they just hand out permits when certain groups complain about too many deer. 

 

Then they cut back when ONE group (hunters) complain loudly enough about the lack of deer.

 

Do they really even need to know the #'s?

[growalot]

I know what the biggest problem the DEC has....Social Media.

 

It is turning their world upside down...forever they could stumble along make mistakes then back peddle and most hunters were pretty much in the dark as to what was occurring in the field State wide. The internet has changed that...How dare we all actually be talking to one another and comparing notes. Who are we to use are brains and compare our gained knowledge to the DEC's attempts to manage the deer herds...or any thing else....How many years of complaints did it take in the Ossion, Nunda area before they finally started opening up bear season in these areas...Shame on hunters for taking their own surveys and net working with other hunters to say...Open a Dove season. We are a clueless laymen to them. They can not throw us our little surveys and sighting reports to "make us feel" involved and keep us quite anymore. What to do? what to do?...Well lets "threaten" them with a possible drastic change and show them who is really in charge... 

[WNYBuckHunter]

In my perfect world I would eliminate doe tags statewide for 3 years and have a permanent statewide rule that only bucks 8 points or better be taken. Our deer heards would be rich and healthy while we would let the bucks grow. I know people say you cant eat horns but how excited would you be that you finally got that 10 point you've dreamed about instead of that 4 point.

 

Seriously? And what form of deer management did you base that idea upon? The Sportsman's Channel?

 

Do you have any clue what 3 years of no DMPs would do to the herd in 3 years in many places? I probably know the answer to that question already...

[G-Man]

Who decides that everyone dreams about a 10 pt, deer are genetically designed to be 8 pts, only.thru manipulation of the genes intentional or otherwise do you get more than 8 pts. Just because you dream of a wall hanger that has 10 pt I know a lot of people happy with 2 points, that is the problem with deer management,taking individual hunters goals and ambitions into account, s

say you killed a 130 class 10 pt every year, when that becomes common, then what you want bigger and more points?? Where does it end?

I think in general most hunters want to see deer period. It may mean more deer than is healthy for the enviroment, but that is what people want,

dec want population control, the push for ar's comes from the public. They lower deer numbers to allow deer to be healthier and the gripe is there are no deer... manage your own areas ,get together with neighbors and stop thinking of them as your deer, learn to enjoy the hunt not the harvest and hunting will be a much more enjoyable persuit

[dbHunterNY]

Sometimes development helps. Sometimes! Others, it hurts hunters and deer. If anyone is familiar with the Albany Pine Bush, they have literally decimated two areas in there. I get that sometimes it helps, but that help comes at a cost. You get people who don't want hunting complaining that deer are eating their begonias. Maybe those area do have an over population.

Now take the actual woods. Where the closest house is 15 miles away. Deer populations are far different, and deer will move around from one place to another, especially when they have a predator hunting them. I don't think the population is down, or up in those areas. I think deer are just moving.

 

DEC does what it can, but aren't they just like any other service? They still have to go through channels to get things approved don't they? Everyone has to do their part. Not everything can be put on DEC shoulders. There are a ton of threads on here that are about the same issues, just the title is worded differently. The replies are always the same. If you know about deer populations in your area, and they are up or down, why not send an emial to DEC letting them know? That would make some sense and maybe even help the situation. Wouldn't it?

 

I used to hunt Albany Pine Bush a lot.  I lived and worked right near there.  It's a constant struggle to keep the deer numbers down.  within several hundred yards the deer have a sanctuary.  whether it's closed areas due to research or the acre of woods surrounded by houses on all sides, they've got a safe zone to run to.  deer even during the rut seem to herd up there.  you have very little action or the woods comes alive and deer are every where  ....until a hiker or something strolls through in the distance.  i'll see 14+ deer at a time in a section of the preserve.

[NYBuckHunter27]

In my perfect world I would eliminate doe tags statewide for 3 years and have a permanent statewide rule that only bucks 8 points or better be taken. Our deer heards would be rich and healthy while we would let the bucks grow. I know people say you cant eat horns but how excited would you be that you finally got that 10 point you've dreamed about instead of that 4 point.

[dbHunterNY]

In my perfect world I would eliminate doe tags statewide for 3 years and have a permanent statewide rule that only bucks 8 points or better be taken. Our deer heards would be rich and healthy while we would let the bucks grow. I know people say you cant eat horns but how excited would you be that you finally got that 10 point you've dreamed about instead of that 4 point.

 

I've heard of this before.  also heard no doe and no spikes.  if the example you said happened statewide then he's in my opinion what would happen.  say you've got 10 deer in your little honey hole area.  in three years that population would be 7-8 times it's original size.  that's based on some assumptions as follows.  you start out with a 1:4 buck to doe ratio.  yearling or fawn doe won't have any fawns that make it.  half the fawns are bucks and half doe.  a more than handful of bucks grow into an 8 pt and some hunter is lucky enough to take them.  most of the areas are at capacity or over with deer versus the habitat (think winter not summer).  now you're introducing 70+ more deer with the same amount of food.  deer are resourceful though and eat whatever is around to survive whether they like it or not.  now let's assume that the deer find this 12-16+ TON of forage in that third year.  that means the nearby suburban $$ landscaping gets chomped, but more importantly browse species in areas of cover the deer call home get wiped clean.  now there's little numbers of plants at deer level to create more plants so each year there's less and less but the demand remains the same.  now assuming the deer find all this food they need somewhere.  even if after year 3 you have a massive deer take the looks like genocide to the non-hunting public, unless they smashed a couple with their car and now hold a grudge, you're still left with habitat that can support far less than the original population.  now your chances of getting trophy 10 point racks is less probable at an earlier age because the food isn't there.  not to mention anything showing any potential will get popped due to many hunters longing to fill a buck tag for the first time in 3 years.  it'd take over a decade to restore the damage done in just those three years.

 

my intentions aren't to shoot down the idea but to convey why I don't think it's a good idea, despite a common one that pops up.

 

[gjs4]

I wrote them for the same reason I still go to the polls despite a republican vote that goes no where- the ability to complain about how bad it is earned by putting effort forth. If you don't try- you don't have that right.