DEC in the 21st Century

[Curmudgeon]

This release showed up today. A noteworthy quote: "DEC biologists will base final objectives for deer population change on whether the public recommendation is compatible with existing levels of deer impacts on forests."

 

DEC Launches Pilot Project to Improve Collection of Public Input About Deer Populations New Process Allows for Increased Public Input

 

 

There will be an increased opportunity for public input in deer management decision-making under a pilot project launched today by the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). This new project will incorporate modern technology and gather input directly from a broader cross-section of New Yorkers.

 

"The old method of collecting public input on desired deer population levels was ground-breaking at the time and has served DEC well for a quarter century," said Acting Commissioner Marc Gerstman. "However, we know we can make the program better by obtaining input from a broader range of citizens, by taking better advantage of current electronic communication methods and by making the process easier for those participating."

 

DEC is initiating this pilot effort in central New York and has selected a 1,325-square-mile group of three WMUs (7H, 8J and 8S) which encompass Seneca County and portions of Ontario, Wayne, Yates, Schuyler, Tompkins and Cayuga counties.

 

The Human Dimensions Research Unit (HDRU) and the Cooperative Extension in the Department of Natural Resources at Cornell University are assisting DEC with the research and educational outreach aspects of the pilot. In addition, Cornell Cooperative Extension of Seneca, Cayuga, and Tompkins counties will play a central role in implementation of the pilot process.

 

The new process is intended to replace the existing Citizen Task Force (CTF) model for seeking public recommendations on desired deer population levels within individual Wildlife Management Units (WMUs), in place since 1990.

 

In keeping with DEC's Management Plan for White-tailed Deer in New York State: 2012-2016, DEC began grouping the existing 92 WMUs into fewer, larger WMU aggregates that will allow for better use of existing and new data and improved deer population monitoring. Public recommendations for deer population change will also be identified for WMU aggregates rather than individual WMUs. DEC is evaluating the best approach to engage the public at this larger scale.

Planning for the revised public input process started in 2013. Activities included interviews with DEC and Cooperative Extension staff, as well as citizens who were involved in the original CTFs to identify the strengths and shortcomings of the old method. In addition, last spring DEC and HDRU conducted a broad-based survey of residents in the central New York pilot WMU aggregate to collect information on public values for deer and their experiences and concerns with deer impacts (e.g., deer-vehicle collisions, landscape damage, agricultural damage) in that area.

The pilot project will include:

• embarking on a broad-scale education effort this fall to develop public understanding of the process, share results of the survey and convey information to the public regarding deer impacts, management issues and challenges in general;
• using the information gained through the broad-scale education effort combined with the public survey results, a small group of citizens will convene for the purpose of identifying and prioritizing deer impacts in the pilot WMU aggregate; and
• using the recommendations of the citizen group, together with the results of the public survey, to define the public recommendation for deer population change in the pilot WMU aggregate.

Citizens participating in the process will no longer be asked to gather input themselves from other stakeholders, which was one of the limitations under the previous CTF approach. Solicitation of input, now via broad public survey, will be more far-reaching and representative than collecting opinions on a limited one-on-one basis.

 

The public recommendation for deer population change will be considered for data describing the ecological impacts of deer within the WMU aggregate. DEC biologists will base final objectives for deer population change on whether the public recommendation is compatible with existing levels of deer impacts on forests.

 

Results of the process, as well as the decisions pursuant to it, will be shared with the public broadly, serving as an audit on the pilot system, and providing feedback for improving the process before expanding it to other WMU aggregates in the future. Once refined, DEC intends to implement the new process on a routine cycle in each aggregate in the state to respond to changing conditions and attitudes about deer impacts over time.

 

The original CTF process involved the selection of a relatively small group of citizens, usually eight to 12 individuals, each representing a particular stake in the deer population level in a WMU. Members included farmers, hunters, motorists, foresters, landowners and others having an interest in the size of a unit's deer herd. Task Force members were asked to seek opinions about desired deer numbers from other citizens in their stakeholder group, form a collective stakeholder position and then report that position back to the CTF. The group, as a whole then debated the merits of the various positions and settled on one collective recommendation to the DEC on which direction the local deer population should go and by how much. The recommendation was expressed as percent change desired in the deer population, including no change. DEC then used the CTF recommendation to guide deer management actions in that particular WMU.

 

For information regarding other DEC deer programs, visit the Department's Deer Management web page.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Curmudgeon

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Well I guess just asking the untrained public "what should we do",  can't get any worse than their ill-conceived plans of late. More people with little understanding of deer management....what could possibly go wrong.  

Edited August 24, 2015 by Culvercreek hunt club

[Doc]

The DEC began abrogating their responsibilities to the Citizens Task Force, and loved the way that spreading responsibility around worked for them. I guess that now they have decided to expand that philosophy. So now when things are screwed up, well .... You asked for it. Nobody wanted to pay attention to the CTF fiasco before, well now we have CTF+ and ignoring it is no longer an option.

[dbHunterNY]

their system's back bone is the "buck take objective", that they base everything else, like doe tag allocation, off of.  the citizen task force is who comes up with the number.  while I'm not confident still that they'll improve, at least they're understanding that this first step needs fixing.

[gjs4]

The early successional forest saving bridgade is why pa went the direction they did. It is also why they are trying to knock the herd back w all the ridiculous high quota antlerless crap. They do not know how to do their job. I would also think because non wildlife matters are at hand hunters will be a small population of those pooled/referenced or cared about.

[Trial153]

Seems like a swell idea. Let hunters pay for the management, let hunters implement the management plan and then let's other " groups " of lay people decide the objectives. They can all hold hands and sing songs and feel great about the input they provide.

[grampy]

Maybe even have hunters and tree huggers hold hands and sing cum ba ya before heading to the stand to do DEC's work.

[DirtTime]

This release showed up today. A noteworthy quote: "DEC biologists will base final objectives for deer population change on whether the public recommendation is compatible with existing levels of deer impacts on forests."

 

DEC Launches Pilot Project to Improve Collection of Public Input About Deer Populations New Process Allows for Increased Public Input

 

 

There will be an increased opportunity for public input in deer management decision-making under a pilot project launched today by the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). This new project will incorporate modern technology and gather input directly from a broader cross-section of New Yorkers.

 

"The old method of collecting public input on desired deer population levels was ground-breaking at the time and has served DEC well for a quarter century," said Acting Commissioner Marc Gerstman. "However, we know we can make the program better by obtaining input from a broader range of citizens, by taking better advantage of current electronic communication methods and by making the process easier for those participating."

 

DEC is initiating this pilot effort in central New York and has selected a 1,325-square-mile group of three WMUs (7H, 8J and 8S) which encompass Seneca County and portions of Ontario, Wayne, Yates, Schuyler, Tompkins and Cayuga counties.

 

The Human Dimensions Research Unit (HDRU) and the Cooperative Extension in the Department of Natural Resources at Cornell University are assisting DEC with the research and educational outreach aspects of the pilot. In addition, Cornell Cooperative Extension of Seneca, Cayuga, and Tompkins counties will play a central role in implementation of the pilot process.

 

The new process is intended to replace the existing Citizen Task Force (CTF) model for seeking public recommendations on desired deer population levels within individual Wildlife Management Units (WMUs), in place since 1990.

 

In keeping with DEC's Management Plan for White-tailed Deer in New York State: 2012-2016, DEC began grouping the existing 92 WMUs into fewer, larger WMU aggregates that will allow for better use of existing and new data and improved deer population monitoring. Public recommendations for deer population change will also be identified for WMU aggregates rather than individual WMUs. DEC is evaluating the best approach to engage the public at this larger scale.

Planning for the revised public input process started in 2013. Activities included interviews with DEC and Cooperative Extension staff, as well as citizens who were involved in the original CTFs to identify the strengths and shortcomings of the old method. In addition, last spring DEC and HDRU conducted a broad-based survey of residents in the central New York pilot WMU aggregate to collect information on public values for deer and their experiences and concerns with deer impacts (e.g., deer-vehicle collisions, landscape damage, agricultural damage) in that area.

The pilot project will include:

• embarking on a broad-scale education effort this fall to develop public understanding of the process, share results of the survey and convey information to the public regarding deer impacts, management issues and challenges in general;
• using the information gained through the broad-scale education effort combined with the public survey results, a small group of citizens will convene for the purpose of identifying and prioritizing deer impacts in the pilot WMU aggregate; and
• using the recommendations of the citizen group, together with the results of the public survey, to define the public recommendation for deer population change in the pilot WMU aggregate.

Citizens participating in the process will no longer be asked to gather input themselves from other stakeholders, which was one of the limitations under the previous CTF approach. Solicitation of input, now via broad public survey, will be more far-reaching and representative than collecting opinions on a limited one-on-one basis.

 

The public recommendation for deer population change will be considered for data describing the ecological impacts of deer within the WMU aggregate. DEC biologists will base final objectives for deer population change on whether the public recommendation is compatible with existing levels of deer impacts on forests.

 

Results of the process, as well as the decisions pursuant to it, will be shared with the public broadly, serving as an audit on the pilot system, and providing feedback for improving the process before expanding it to other WMU aggregates in the future. Once refined, DEC intends to implement the new process on a routine cycle in each aggregate in the state to respond to changing conditions and attitudes about deer impacts over time.

 

The original CTF process involved the selection of a relatively small group of citizens, usually eight to 12 individuals, each representing a particular stake in the deer population level in a WMU. Members included farmers, hunters, motorists, foresters, landowners and others having an interest in the size of a unit's deer herd. Task Force members were asked to seek opinions about desired deer numbers from other citizens in their stakeholder group, form a collective stakeholder position and then report that position back to the CTF. The group, as a whole then debated the merits of the various positions and settled on one collective recommendation to the DEC on which direction the local deer population should go and by how much. The recommendation was expressed as percent change desired in the deer population, including no change. DEC then used the CTF recommendation to guide deer management actions in that particular WMU.

 

For information regarding other DEC deer programs, visit the Department's Deer Management web page.

 

This is still only about a specific area. What about the Long Island area, WNY, the Southern Zone, ADK, and Upstate? Why do DEC seem to center on Central NY?

[Trial153]

This is still only about a specific area. What about the Long Island area, WNY, the Southern Zone, ADK, and Upstate? Why do DEC seem to center on Central NY?

.

They can have regional pow wows with different groups all over the state. By the time they organized it and cam up with a new plan it will be like a 5 year waste of time.

[Doc]

Perhaps this is a declaration of the DEC intent not to have as much concern for hunter satisfaction as in times past. It may be a statement of divorce of sorts. It began with the CTFs and is being expanded in a more clear and public way. From strictly a hunter's standpoint, I have to say that it sucks. However, we are getting to be a smaller and less significant and less influential percentage of the general population. This is likely just a DEC acknowledgement of that fact. Perhaps it is just one more nail in the coffin for hunting. I don't know.

[nyantler]

No matter how the DEC makes it's decisions.. they should be based on, at the very least, common sense... which seems to be lacking given the latest ideas coming out of the department, which really suggests incompetence more than anything else.

[A Sportsman]

Agree Doc. I really don't like the way this thing reads. It's as if they are more concerned with making numbers of people happy (including non hunters) as opposed to strictly focusing on deer numbers and habitat. It's like they are removing the science behind their decision making processes and replacing it with advice from more people who likely know very little about ecology and wildlife management.

Also, is it me or did DEC eliminate the use of the word "management" and substitute it with "change". Maybe I am nitpicking it, but the phrase "deer population change" is used over and over where it should be "deer population management". Maybe it's just semantics, but to me this substition makes it feel as if the DEC is trying to distance itself from what has been primarily their job. "Change" implies there may be little they can effectually do once they take in advice from the CTF. "Management" implies an active/aggressive role with a stated purpose and puts more responsibility on DEC to succeed.

Edited August 25, 2015 by A Sportsman

[Culvercreek hunt club]

No matter how the DEC makes it's decisions.. they should be based on, at the very least, common sense... which seems to be lacking given the latest ideas coming out of the department, which really suggests incompetence more than anything else.

Yeah, what a novel idea and a fantasy pipe dream.....manage the resource for the best of the resource.

[Curmudgeon]

I agree with a lot of what you all wrote. That said: I am an advocate of keeping deer numbers low enough to allow forest regeneration. I guess that makes me a tree hugger. A hunter and a tree hugger.

 

This plan will to include more voices in the decision making thus diluting what hunters have to say. Hunters are essential to the management goals. There is no other way to control deer numbers. DEC must increase recruitment of hunters so those of us disappearing due to attrition can be replaced.

 

So, what do deer hunters want? I've been trying to figure this out for some time.

 

 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I agree with a lot of what you all wrote. That said: I am an advocate of keeping deer numbers low enough to allow forest regeneration. I guess that makes me a tree hugger. A hunter and a tree hugger.

 

This plan will to include more voices in the decision making thus diluting what hunters have to say. Hunters are essential to the management goals. There is no other way to control deer numbers. DEC must increase recruitment of hunters so those of us disappearing due to attrition can be replaced.

 

So, what do deer hunters want? I've been trying to figure this out for some time.

Personally, I want a sustainable, balanced resource to hunt. Many opportunities to hunt varied species with varied weapons with a good likelihood that I can take game and have a decent chance at a trophy to boot. My hunting is as much a social experience as it is the challenge of the hunt. I prefer long seasons that allow me to enjoy that aspect of the sport.

 

And for the record I don't think wanting deer numbers at a level to allow forest regeneration makes a 'tree hugger". That would be the ideal maximum numbers for a herd. Where a tree hugger tag would be appropriate would be to be against tree harvest and also be against deer harvest and those two fly in the face of each other. maturing forests that provide less and less food source with each successive year for a growing deer herd. That is emotional management and not conservation. Very few of our species in NY are mature forest species.

[Doc]

I don't think there is anyone who wants to see deer munching down future forest before they exist. I think that is a worthy goal to actually want to prevent that. So how on earth does the enlistment of opinions from uneducated laymen ensure that that goal is met. That was the basic flaw of the CTFs. And now they want to expand that flaw. How about the DEC starts putting into practice all those college degrees that we pay so much for and start applying their own so-called expertise instead of enlisting an army of uneducated stakeholders who just happen to have financial interests as their "stakes". How about some good changes that make sense, changes that improve deer population estimates and scientific estimates of habitat changes and the real impacts of the herd on that habitat. Perhaps it is time to move the deer management out of the world of opinion and into the world of actual science that these guys and gals have been schooled in.

 

 

[G-Man]

Wish that could happen doc, but the dec is not in charge the lawmakers are in albany, if we had a constitutional amendment allowing hunting to be controlled by a game comission, that would let them make seasons, implementation of weapons used, extend or close season according to their wildlife specalists. But we don't so albany decides on season, and legnth, and what to do this is just an extension of albany power..

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Wish that could happen doc, but the dec is not in charge the lawmakers are in albany, if we had a constitutional amendment allowing hunting to be controlled by a game comission, that would let them make seasons, implementation of weapons used, extend or close season according to their wildlife specalists. But we don't so albany decides on season, and legnth, and what to do this is just an extension of albany power..

They didn't appear to need an amendment for this hair brained idea? 

[Doc]

I would be happy to get the moneyed interests out of the management process, and the DEC seems to be moving to put the moneyed interests in charge of management, or at least with an adequate influence to shape policy and decisions. Those are decisions that the DEC should have within their power. However, I do understand the politics of the DEC. After all their boss is appointed by and beholden to the Governor. I only ask that they don't be so damned blatant about it.

[mike rossi]

Wish that could happen doc, but the dec is not in charge the lawmakers are in albany, if we had a constitutional amendment allowing hunting to be controlled by a game comission, that would let them make seasons, implementation of weapons used, extend or close season according to their wildlife specalists. But we don't so albany decides on season, and legnth, and what to do this is just an extension of albany power..

 

Game commission members are usually appointed by politicians as well. I dont know how many states use this system I know NJ does and that place is FUBR. Some of the Indian reservations use it. PA has some sort of similar system but I dont think it is as nuts as jerseys. According the the jersey dudes, they got the best system and everyone envies it, well not me.... 

 

NY does have CFAB  and the FWMB, not too different than GC, but with a specific focus, members are also appointed except for a few ex offico members. So, in lack of better words, NY has a partial game commission....