Anyone see the NYODN yet?

[BKhunter]

I was listening to a meat eater podcast recently and I believe the topic of how to split up wmu came up. They had someone on there I forget their name but they were very knowledgeable and they said the best way to do it would be by watershed. Obviously I have no background in this matter but seemed logical..... That being the logical thing explains why the government won't adopt it

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wdswtr]

Putting gun season in bow season is crazy from a safety standpoint. Deer hunters with guns and bow hunters in camo? The DEC would have to change the bow season regs to mandate blaze orange on bow hunters...something NY does not do...even for gun season. To me, the mix of guns and bow hunting is too dangerous to comprehend...knowing the greenhorns (deer hunters with only a few seasons and kills under their belts)  out there with guns and we who choose to bow hunt in full camo in the same stretch of woods. 

 

But I agree, enjoy this deer season (2015.) It might be the last good one.

 

Didnt read through all the post after this one, so if it was said already my apologies.

Northern Zone they have Bow and Guns already in the same season.  We get to hunt with ML or Bow the last week of a very short bow season to begin with.  We get 2 weekends before the gun hunters are in the woods with us.  Been this way for too long.  We have a very long rifle season up here, no excuses why they cant take the first week of rifle and give it to ML and let bow stand alone. 

[Doc]

Sure sounded like you were worried about it when you said...

 

"I'm simply concerned that we will be losing a more closely controlled existing zoning system (WMU system) for another band-aid that is by design worse and less finely married to habitat and local conditions than what we already have."

 

In any case, as has been explained already, the new zones are based upon similar overall habitat characteristics. In other words, the average yearling buck in the area that I hunt, is larger than the average yearling buck in the Dacks or Catskills, so if you want to manage things to try and protect the yearling bucks, the rules you make down in the Catskills arent going to work very well around here. The rules they make in my area, will generally work in Monroe or Wayne county though. If you dont understand how it is less expensive to manage 9 zones vs 89 WMUs, especially when there is no need to, well I dont know what to tell you.

 

I really think the zone layout is fine for the purposes of buck management, Im just waiting to see how they intend to do it.

 

And, in fact it sounds like we are indeed losing the WMU management system for bucks. It sure does seem a bit convoluted to be managing the whole herd with one system, and bucks with another separate and additional system. And you are claiming all this comes for less dollars?

 

I don't know how familiar you are with the current WMU system and the history of it, but those exact same words of regionality, contiguous and common habitat and land use were used when they spent all that time and energy designing up that system. Supposedly they were formed to eliminate management rules made in the Catskills and Adirondacks being inappropriately applied here in Western NY and vice-versa. I mean this isn't the first time they considered all of these things. All that was accounted for when they set up WMUs and regions. How many times does the wheel have to be re-invented? And now for bucks, we go back to square one with regions so huge that you cannot avoid running wildly divergent habitats and population densities and hunting pressures together. The current system is DEC staffed, understood by hunters and already takes in regional uniqueness even better than what is proposed. To me it is just another set of rules and new boundaries to further confuse hunters and maybe draw a little more fine money.

 

Quote: "If you dont understand how it is less expensive to manage 9 zones vs 89 WMUs, especially when there is no need to, well I dont know what to tell you."

Well maybe you can figure out a way to explain the new math that makes it cheaper to manage the existing 89 units for the entire herd (We both agree that they aren't going anywhere) and then overlay another 9 units on top with assumedly some corresponding increases in staff to somehow manage bucks separately ....and I am supposed to believe this is a cost savings? 

 

They also already have decades of data gathered and in the computers that are all defined by WMU. As far as the bucks are concerned, all that stuff starts over from the beginning with new boundaries. Where is the savings? Stop a second and logically think about that and I think you might begin to catch on to why I am confused.

 

I know that I tend to get a bit long with some of these explanations, but it is only because I want to be understood. What I fear is that people speed read these messages and lose 90% of what I am trying to say. Try reading one of these responses, point by point, and I will be surprised if you don't agree with what I am saying. The preponderance of all of these points has to simply leave you puzzled and wondering just what is going on.

[WNYBuckHunter]

And, in fact it sounds like we are indeed losing the WMU management system for bucks. It sure does seem a bit convoluted to be managing the whole herd with one system, and bucks with another separate and additional system. And you are claiming all this comes for less dollars?

 

I don't know how familiar you are with the current WMU system and the history of it, but those exact same words of regionality, contiguous and common habitat and land use were used when they spent all that time and energy designing up that system. Supposedly they were formed to eliminate management rules made in the Catskills and Adirondacks being inappropriately applied here in Western NY and vice-versa. I mean this isn't the first time they considered all of these things. All that was accounted for when they set up WMUs and regions. How many times does the wheel have to be re-invented? And now for bucks, we go back to square one with regions so huge that you cannot avoid running wildly divergent habitats and population densities and hunting pressures together. The current system is DEC staffed, understood by hunters and already takes in regional uniqueness even better than what is proposed. To me it is just another set of rules and new boundaries to further confuse hunters and maybe draw a little more fine money.

 

Quote: "If you dont understand how it is less expensive to manage 9 zones vs 89 WMUs, especially when there is no need to, well I dont know what to tell you."

Well maybe you can figure out a way to explain the new math that makes it cheaper to manage the existing 89 units for the entire herd (We both agree that they aren't going anywhere) and then overlay another 9 units on top with assumedly some corresponding increases in staff to somehow manage bucks separately ....and I am supposed to believe this is a cost savings? 

 

They also already have decades of data gathered and in the computers that are all defined by WMU. As far as the bucks are concerned, all that stuff starts over from the beginning with new boundaries. Where is the savings? Stop a second and logically think about that and I think you might begin to catch on to why I am confused.

 

I know that I tend to get a bit long with some of these explanations, but it is only because I want to be understood. What I fear is that people speed read these messages and lose 90% of what I am trying to say. Try reading one of these responses, point by point, and I will be surprised if you don't agree with what I am saying. The preponderance of all of these points has to simply leave you puzzled and wondering just what is going on.

 

When did the current WMU system begin managing bucks (besides when ARs started)? The whole AR zone thing has prompted this, because they are seeing that the small WMUs arent as effiecient for them to manage as larger habitat based zones. You dont manage herd population with bucks, you do that with does, and population has little to do with this. Im claiming to manage YEARLING BUCK HARVEST (something new on a statewide scale) it will cost less to manage 9 zones rather than 89. Do I need to get my crayon out? Because the logic behind that is astoundingly simple.

 

BTW, the boundaries of the new zones follow the boundaries of the WMUs they contain. Gathering data is easy, just add up the old data from the WMUs in that zone and viola!

 

And I need to correct our conversation here, its 7 zones, not 9.

 

[dbHunterNY]

there's another thing to consider.  when they come out with whatever buck restrictions for each unit they decided on, you will less borders with opposing standards.  less people would be crying to blues because a buck jumped into the next WMU and got popped.  that'd add to a hunters discontent that was against the restrictions to begin with.

[Doc]

When did the current WMU system begin managing bucks (besides when ARs started)? The whole AR zone thing has prompted this, because they are seeing that the small WMUs arent as effiecient for them to manage as larger habitat based zones. You dont manage herd population with bucks, you do that with does, and population has little to do with this. Im claiming to manage YEARLING BUCK HARVEST (something new on a statewide scale) it will cost less to manage 9 zones rather than 89. Do I need to get my crayon out? Because the logic behind that is astoundingly simple.

 

BTW, the boundaries of the new zones follow the boundaries of the WMUs they contain. Gathering data is easy, just add up the old data from the WMUs in that zone and viola!

 

And I need to correct our conversation here, its 7 zones, not 9.

 

Yeah, use your crayons or use common sense if you choose, whatever. But don't try to tell me that you can add a secondary overlaid redundant system of zoned management without cost increases. Basically they will be using region sized zones instead of WMUs. One would think that if that were adequate for bucks, they could save a pile of money by managing does in those same huge areas.

 

I want to offer an example that will clarify my point. This recent regulation that they have been tossing around about declaring the 1st 2-weeks of bow season to be doe only, based on size of doe populations in out-of-control areas. If they declare that a buck management decision, it could wind up applying to a whole lot of land areas than the target WMU. Now I'm not sure that they will declare that a buck management decision or not, but that does point up the potential kinds of problems to hunters of wildly expanding the management zone size for bucks and how it may impact WMUs that can not afford that kind of restriction. In other words, just like any kind of expansion of zones. you start working your way back to inappropriate regulations on areas that  shouldn't be affected.

 

AR regs also may impact WMUs that can't support them just because some of the included WMUs can. If these huge zones are used to determine where AR is to be applied, it very well may turn out that some of the WMUs with those huge buck zones have zero or very few available antlerless permits. The impact on hunters is obvious. I see conflicts of buck management with doe management simply because you have two conflicting systems at work on the same land. Staying with the WMU zones for buck management allows a flexibility to declare individual WMUs to be AR, depending on local situations and conditions, which makes a whole lot more sense to me. Actually the individual WMU AR locations shows very well how WMUs can be used for buck management.

 

I'm sure that conflicts will not be limited to only these examples. Such is the nature of maintaining two systems for the same land. And all for no reason. Everyone thinks that complication involves a solution ...... It doesn't. You have a system, use it! It is not designed only for does. It can work for bucks as well as does (imagine that).

[WNYBuckHunter]

Yeah, use your crayons or use common sense if you choose, whatever. But don't try to tell me that you can add a secondary overlaid redundant system of zoned management without cost increases. Basically they will be using region sized zones instead of WMUs. One would think that if that were adequate for bucks, they could save a pile of money by managing does in those same huge areas.

 

I want to offer an example that will clarify my point. This recent regulation that they have been tossing around about declaring the 1st 2-weeks of bow season to be doe only, based on size of doe populations in out-of-control areas. If they declare that a buck management decision, it could wind up applying to a whole lot of land areas than the target WMU. Now I'm not sure that they will declare that a buck management decision or not, but that does point up the potential kinds of problems to hunters of wildly expanding the management zone size for bucks and how it may impact WMUs that can not afford that kind of restriction. In other words, just like any kind of expansion of zones. you start working your way back to inappropriate regulations on areas that  shouldn't be affected.

 

AR regs also may impact WMUs that can't support them just because some of the included WMUs can. If these huge zones are used to determine where AR is to be applied, it very well may turn out that some of the WMUs with those huge buck zones have zero or very few available antlerless permits. The impact on hunters is obvious. I see conflicts of buck management with doe management simply because you have two conflicting systems at work on the same land. Staying with the WMU zones for buck management allows a flexibility to declare individual WMUs to be AR, depending on local situations and conditions, which makes a whole lot more sense to me. Actually the individual WMU AR locations shows very well how WMUs can be used for buck management.

 

I'm sure that conflicts will not be limited to only these examples. Such is the nature of maintaining two systems for the same land. And all for no reason. Everyone thinks that complication involves a solution ...... It doesn't. You have a system, use it! It is not designed only for does. It can work for bucks as well as does (imagine that).

 

I just dont get what is blocking your brain from understanding that the new zones have NOTHING TO DO WITH DOE MANAGEMENT, NOTHING TO DO WITH POPULATION MANAGEMENT. So stop trying to insinuate that another population management change (doe only season) has anything to do with these zones or buck management. It is not a redundant system, they are now putting more into managing yearling bucks, so its a new management system. I never said there wont be increased costs to implement the programs to manage yearling bucks, of course there will. I said it will be more efficient to manage a smaller number of zones. Costs be damned, the zones make sense, they follow the same boarders as WMUs, you just dont need to manage yearling bucks in areas as small as WMUs, so they group a bunch of them together into a zone that includes areas with similar habitat features. What is so complicated about that?

 

 

 

 

[Buckstopshere]

When we talk about redundant systems, what we are really talking about is an overlay, or another layer  or layers of systems on an already existing system. If there are 99 DMUs in NY, then if we add 7 more buck zones as another layer, of course it will cost more. Duh. And all statewide deer management systems are all about the overall herd management, not just bucks. It is simply naive to think otherwise, no matter how large the point size of the text or how loud we yell. Truth is not dependent upon how loud we shout out our opinions.

[Doc]

I just dont get what is blocking your brain from understanding that the new zones have NOTHING TO DO WITH DOE MANAGEMENT, NOTHING TO DO WITH POPULATION MANAGEMENT. So stop trying to insinuate that another population management change (doe only season) has anything to do with these zones or buck management. It is not a redundant system, they are now putting more into managing yearling bucks, so its a new management system. I never said there wont be increased costs to implement the programs to manage yearling bucks, of course there will. I said it will be more efficient to manage a smaller number of zones. Costs be damned, the zones make sense, they follow the same boarders as WMUs, you just dont need to manage yearling bucks in areas as small as WMUs, so they group a bunch of them together into a zone that includes areas with similar habitat features. What is so complicated about that?

Do you really believe that one particular gender of the herd can be managed separately without interactive consideration? I'm not sure that it is even possible to manage deer according to gender. And, I don't think you ever manage one without impacts to the other. So to say that it has nothing to do with doe management is really incorrect. And I am sure that you cannot manage bucks without concepts of "population management" being involved. So that part of your statement is incorrect also.

[mike rossi]

Well, you can implement an earn a buck or as someone on here said, make the lottery for buck permits not doe permits, that they got it reversed....

 

I would go with the buck lottery. Than the BOW  can generate conservation funds instead of burning them running check stations.

 

Either way they still can create zones to manage on a finer scale.....

Edited August 1, 2015 by mike rossi

[Larry]

their calling them buck management units but their going to manage both bucks and does in the units

GET OFF THE EARN -A- BUCK CRAP IT'S BULL SH&T AND HAS NOT WORKED ANY WHERE ITS BEEN TRIED

[Doc]

their calling them buck management units but their going to manage both bucks and does in the units

I have to admit that I can't really imagine the actual details of how they are going to use these so-called "buck management units". I find it difficult to  believe that you can effectively manage one unique segment of the herd by gender. But, maybe that's because I haven't seen a description that is better than just a bunch of generalities. We'll see what the actual use of these new units bring.

[growalot]

OMG!!! another 8-9 months of this...I'm almost beginning to miss the original x-bow "debates"...

 

Now that wouldn't be part of the plan would it? Getting ppl so riled up they start turning on each other in the discussions ...forgetting to keep a close eye on what the DEC and Governors office is doing...hhhmmm

[Doc]

OMG!!! another 8-9 months of this...I'm almost beginning to miss the original x-bow "debates"...

 

Now that wouldn't be part of the plan would it? Getting ppl so riled up they start turning on each other in the discussions ...forgetting to keep a close eye on what the DEC and Governors office is doing...hhhmmm

Not really, just keeping a close eye on what the DEC is doing for or to us. Seems like a reasonable thing to do these day, or any days.

[thphm]

One thing they did is ( on the Reg. & Bow hunting Deer Season Map ) In the box lower left

Crossbows MAY be used to hunt Deer during the Northern and Southern Zone Regular Seasons.And you have a Crossbow Season from Nov. 7 - Nov. 20.

[wztirem]

I just dont get what is blocking your brain from understanding that the new zones have NOTHING TO DO WITH DOE MANAGEMENT, NOTHING TO DO WITH POPULATION MANAGEMENT. So stop trying to insinuate that another population management change (doe only season) has anything to do with these zones or buck management. It is not a redundant system, they are now putting more into managing yearling bucks, so its a new management system. I never said there wont be increased costs to implement the programs to manage yearling bucks, of course there will. I said it will be more efficient to manage a smaller number of zones. Costs be damned, the zones make sense, they follow the same boarders as WMUs, you just dont need to manage yearling bucks in areas as small as WMUs, so they group a bunch of them together into a zone that includes areas with similar habitat features. What is so complicated about that?

 

Spot on POST!

[Larry]

none of us know squat till the new 2016 management plan comes out unless the new plan is out. unless the 2015-16 regs have came and I did not find them Friday when I checked then we don't even know what's going on for this year. all we are doing is making a wag on what's going to happen

[gjs4]

It will be interesting to see how zones falling in multiple DEC regions will be handled

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[A Sportsman]

So if the dec wants to manage one subset of wmus differently for bucks than another sunset of wmus, why can't they do so without establishing/demarcating the new larger zones? All they need to do is list the wmus that fall under whatever management scheme they want to use. This is not complicated. In fact it's exactly how the dec has been implementing the current AR zones.

Plus as doc points out I would think the dec would have more flexibility to adjust their buck management regulations if they use wmus rather than the larger multi wmu buck management zones. What if you have an oddball wmu with very different deer herd in the middle of your buck management zone?

Once we get all the details it will make for better discussion but I'm sorry, to me this smells funny.

[Doc]

Once we get all the details it will make for better discussion but I'm sorry, to me this smells funny.

Yeah, I'm afraid we may be operating with less than 1/2 of the story. Unfortunately by the time we get the rest and see the results and how they really intend to use these buck management zones, it will be set in stone.

[WNYBuckHunter]

When we talk about redundant systems, what we are really talking about is an overlay, or another layer  or layers of systems on an already existing system. If there are 99 DMUs in NY, then if we add 7 more buck zones as another layer, of course it will cost more. Duh. And all statewide deer management systems are all about the overall herd management, not just bucks. It is simply naive to think otherwise, no matter how large the point size of the text or how loud we yell. Truth is not dependent upon how loud we shout out our opinions.

 

I seriously think you and Doc are smoking the same stuff. When did I ever say that an additional layer of deer management would cost less than the previous system? If I said that anywhere, please point it out and Ill eat my hat. DUH.

 

I also said nothing about overall management. This whole thread has been about the new buck management program and map, we arent talking population management, doe management, DMP allocation or anything like that.

 

What I said is that Doc has been insinuating that current WMUs are somehow going to go away, and that instead of focusing on herd management on a smaller, more precise scale, the DEC is looking to broaden its scope. None of that is true. Like you said, its just another layer, and this layer (yearling buck management) is fine to manage in larger areas than specific WMUs.

 

Try to keep up.

[WNYBuckHunter]

Do you really believe that one particular gender of the herd can be managed separately without interactive consideration? I'm not sure that it is even possible to manage deer according to gender. And, I don't think you ever manage one without impacts to the other. So to say that it has nothing to do with doe management is really incorrect. And I am sure that you cannot manage bucks without concepts of "population management" being involved. So that part of your statement is incorrect also.

 

Of course you have to take population into consideration when you are talking about how many bucks you want shot. Thats not what this piece of their plan is about.

[WNYBuckHunter]

So if the dec wants to manage one subset of wmus differently for bucks than another sunset of wmus, why can't they do so without establishing/demarcating the new larger zones? All they need to do is list the wmus that fall under whatever management scheme they want to use. This is not complicated. In fact it's exactly how the dec has been implementing the current AR zones.

Plus as doc points out I would think the dec would have more flexibility to adjust their buck management regulations if they use wmus rather than the larger multi wmu buck management zones. What if you have an oddball wmu with very different deer herd in the middle of your buck management zone?

Once we get all the details it will make for better discussion but I'm sorry, to me this smells funny.

 

Thats all these zones are. They are doing it because its more efficient than changing the rules WMU by WMU. If you think about it, it will be easier for hunters to remember as well, kind of like NZ vs SZ. There are going to be pitfalls, there always are with any kind of plan.

[A Sportsman]

Ok well there it is. "More efficient than changing rules wmu by wmu". Efficiency equals easier for dec. But I think at the expense of flexibility and management success. I don't see it as that complicated to go Wmu by wmu. We'll see though. They'll do what they are gonna do and I will continue to hunt.

[dbHunterNY]

So if the dec wants to manage one subset of wmus differently for bucks than another sunset of wmus, why can't they do so without establishing/demarcating the new larger zones? All they need to do is list the wmus that fall under whatever management scheme they want to use. This is not complicated. In fact it's exactly how the dec has been implementing the current AR zones.

Plus as doc points out I would think the dec would have more flexibility to adjust their buck management regulations if they use wmus rather than the larger multi wmu buck management zones. What if you have an oddball wmu with very different deer herd in the middle of your buck management zone?

Once we get all the details it will make for better discussion but I'm sorry, to me this smells funny.

 

it will in a sense be that way.  it really is only an explanation with reasoning of why some will be what they are and why some are treated the same as others.  until they put plans into action and on the books and get less than desired results they have little reason to need more flexibility and don't really have the man power to do so.  not all WMU's are staffed with deer knowledge equally same as other tasks DEC have.  right now it shouldn't smell at all because there's not much to talk about.  all this is conceptual until it's put into action.