1 and done.

[moog5050]

The thing is, in many units where there are no DMP's available or if they are there are very few, and if NY goes with OBR hunters in those areas are completely done with their season if they shoot one deer. 

 

Many of you keep forgetting that they aren't trying to reduce the population in the entire state, only in select areas.  Making changes for the entire state in ways that eliminate opportunities for others goes against what we as hunters should be trying to support.  I would fully support a OBR for the areas that they are having problems with the population being to high, but don't try to force it on the entire state.

 

 

Fair point BellR.  I had not thought about that.

[exteriorscaping]

I am 1 of 13 hunters in my family. And we've stuck with the one buck rule for the last 10 years. Over the last few season the deer have gotten bigger. This year on our cameras we believe to have 3 (10points). We call it drop it pass

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[phade]

I give up, Doc is right. He is always right.

 

OBR is a fad, Kansas, Ohio, KY, IN, and others all have it wrong. Our NYS DEC are the benchmark in deer management - and if having a 23 day gun season in the rut, a bow season that was just reduced in parts of the state to antlerless only for 14 days, plus an entire MZ season antlerless only in the same areas, all without any biological evidence to prove it is prudent, along with a proven track record of being able to fluidly make adjustments to keep deer management as a resource and hunters as a group happy, then yeah, go for it. Oh and no incentive to open private lands up for hunting, might as well throw that in there.

 

Let's just keep sticking our heads in the sand. It's gotten us really far to date, Doc.

 

 

 

 

[phade]

The thing is, in many units where there are no DMP's available or if they are there are very few, and if NY goes with OBR hunters in those areas are completely done with their season if they shoot one deer. 

 

Many of you keep forgetting that they aren't trying to reduce the population in the entire state, only in select areas.  Making changes for the entire state in ways that eliminate opportunities for others goes against what we as hunters should be trying to support.  I would fully support a OBR for the areas that they are having problems with the population being to high, but don't try to force it on the entire state.

 

 

MN has one deer only areas. Like you, you are not done with one deer. You are just done in that area. What happens now is that hunters in those one deer areas are traveling to the overpopulation areas to whack more deer, spurring economic growth/investment, while at the same time allowing the areas that need population growth, to actually take place. If you have zero DMPs in your unit, it's highly unlikely that taking two bucks is better than taking one from a resource perspective. I doubt the imbalance of B:D and the carrying capacity/BTO is that askew.

[Trial153]

I can't believe this is even debatable ......

[Five Seasons]

Undecided. On one hand, like many have pointed out with the new late muzzleloader season. If I shoot a buck in early archery I'm pretty much done for the year. I may go out to pop another doe or 2 to put in freezer meat but the excitement is just gone in areas where I hunt. I can see doe every sit, so I get excited that the brown I see coming through might have horns.

 

Just my .02.

[WNYBuckHunter]

The thing is, in many units where there are no DMP's available or if they are there are very few, and if NY goes with OBR hunters in those areas are completely done with their season if they shoot one deer. 

 

Many of you keep forgetting that they aren't trying to reduce the population in the entire state, only in select areas.  Making changes for the entire state in ways that eliminate opportunities for others goes against what we as hunters should be trying to support.  I would fully support a OBR for the areas that they are having problems with the population being to high, but don't try to force it on the entire state.

 

So look at the reasons why there are few or no DMPs in that area. Its because the population is low. Should they be shooting 2 bucks in those areas?

[phade]

I have no idea how this season is going to play out for me, personally, as far as days afield or desire/drive.

 

What I do believe is that the DEC has positioned themselves perfectly to continue to mismanage our resource and hunter sentiment. The want us to get does to the desired levels. Yet, I haven't seen Doc or anyone else from the DEC state what that number needs to be or even what ballpark it needs to be in. It's brilliant. Now they can do whatever they want regardless of the action/results because we won't know how well we did compared to the "desired levels."

 

Yet they state they won't deviate from their management plan. That's completely correct, and that's why the Vaseline is needed. We won't and can't know any different.

Edited September 2, 2015 by phade

[dbHunterNY]

I have no idea how this season is going to play out for me, personally, as far as days afield or desire/drive.

 

What I do believe is that the DEC has positioned themselves perfectly to continue to mismanage our resource and hunter sentiment. The want us to get does to the desired levels. Yet, I haven't seen Doc or anyone else from the DEC state what that number needs to be or even what ballpark it needs to be in. It's brilliant. Now they can do whatever they want regardless of the action/results because we won't know how well we did compared to the "desired levels."

 

Yet they state they won't deviate from their management plan. That's completely correct, and that's why the Vaseline is needed. We won't and can't know any different.

 

if you're in 8H it better be taking at least 9 doe per square mile throughout the WMU, assuming the similar buck take as the past half a decade.  their goal is 7 doe per square mile assuming you're not over the BTO but I'm sure the WMU will probably be again 2 bucks over the BTO.  in DEC's mind they think those 2 bucks could've been doe or there are more deer then the BTO suggests.  why DEC has us at 4.5 for a BTO in 4C is retarded and they need a little restructuring or education of the citizen task force for our area.  I plan on working on that a little.  we've been under it for a while, in turn get less doe permits, and then get over run with deer.  ...but to DEC it looks good on paper.  the way the system works is BTO should change with the trend of buck harvest in a WMU.  why DEC holds onto the same number forever has me befuddled as all hell.

[moog5050]

So look at the reasons why there are few or no DMPs in that area. Its because the population is low. Should they be shooting 2 bucks in those areas?

 

I agree with this but sure would be bummed if I were BellR if I could only hunt for one deer.  I guess two with the bow doe tag.  But you are probably right.  the option is to hunt where there are more doe.

[phade]

if you're in 8H it better be taking at least 9 doe per square mile throughout the WMU, assuming the similar buck take as the past half a decade.  their goal is 7 doe per square mile assuming you're not over the BTO but I'm sure the WMU will probably be again 2 bucks over the BTO.  in DEC's mind they think those 2 bucks could've been doe or there are more deer then the BTO suggests.  why DEC has us at 4.5 for a BTO in 4C is retarded and they need a little restructuring or education of the citizen task force for our area.  I plan on working on that a little.  we've been under it for a while, in turn get less doe permits, and then get over run with deer.  ...but to DEC it looks good on paper.  the way the system works is BTO should change with the trend of buck harvest in a WMU.  why DEC holds onto the same number forever has me befuddled as all hell.

 

 

No offense, but all of that is back-room math. The DEC hasn't laid out any standards set forth in any PRs or communications. The only reference is "desired levels." Anyone saying their trying to back calculate is making a large assumption - otherwise the DEC would clearly, cleanly, and simply state targets.

[moog5050]

if you're in 8H it better be taking at least 9 doe per square mile throughout the WMU, assuming the similar buck take as the past half a decade.  their goal is 7 doe per square mile assuming you're not over the BTO but I'm sure the WMU will probably be again 2 bucks over the BTO.  in DEC's mind they think those 2 bucks could've been doe or there are more deer then the BTO suggests.  why DEC has us at 4.5 for a BTO in 4C is retarded and they need a little restructuring or education of the citizen task force for our area.  I plan on working on that a little.  we've been under it for a while, in turn get less doe permits, and then get over run with deer.  ...but to DEC it looks good on paper.  the way the system works is BTO should change with the trend of buck harvest in a WMU.  why DEC holds onto the same number forever has me befuddled as all hell.

  LOL - we took about 10 doe on 23 acres last year in 8H and a few more on other parcels in 8H. We did our part.

[phade]

  LOL - we took about 10 doe on 23 acres last year in 8H and a few more on other parcels in 8H. We did our part.

 

 

I bet we could run out of antlerless eligible tags by October 15. But by the DEC's reasoning obtaining tags isn't a barrier. Never understood why needing to beg borrow or steal DMP consignments was seen as something to defend against opening up tags OTC without reservation.

 

Good grief.

Edited September 2, 2015 by phade

[dbHunterNY]

I agree with this but sure would be bummed if I were BellR if I could only hunt for one deer.  I guess two with the bow doe tag.  But you are probably right.  the option is to hunt where there are more doe.

 

this mentality is one of the big factors for a decline in overall deer population.  things like EHD or human related liberal doe take reduce the population.  hunters don't come to terms with the situation there's fewer deer so you can't harvest as many.  they harvest deer as if nothing is different and now the population doesn't rebound.  not to ignore limited holding capacity in areas similar to the catskills.

[BellR]

So look at the reasons why there are few or no DMPs in that area. Its because the population is low. Should they be shooting 2 bucks in those areas?

 

As far as I can tell, there are no DMP's simply because they don't issue them in the 'dacks.  I have yet to see one reason from the DEC why none have been issued for the area in my memory.  I would venture to say that in the area I hunt up north, there are probably more deer than there are in units like 4A who do have some limited numbers available, they are just harder to find since there aren't wide open fields everywhere to see them in.

[dbHunterNY]

  LOL - we took about 10 doe on 23 acres last year in 8H and a few more on other parcels in 8H. We did our part.

 

true but access wise you're 23 acres out of 574 square miles.  over the counter or something else other than what they proposed is what's needed to have more hunters doing their part.  those of us who take our fair share can and will only take so much, which isn't enough.  even if you could and would try to take enough to balance that out, you couldn't.  laugh all you want but you just lost 14 days and late season of buck hunting.

[BellR]

So look at the reasons why there are few or no DMPs in that area. Its because the population is low. Should they be shooting 2 bucks in those areas?

 

Should you be able to shoot ANY bucks in an area that they need the doe population lowered?  If they did away with buck tags in those areas the doe take should increase.

 

I'm not arguing that this should be the case, what I am saying is stop trying to impose statewide regulations to fix a LOCAL problem.  The deer population where I hunt has been stable for years (according to DEC, I actually think it is going up). That is why they don't issue DMP's.  Stop trying to fix your problem by taking away other hunters opportunities. 

 

Forcing OBR, EAB or AR on the state would be like saying, "Since the bow hunters aren't doing their part of taking does and the gun hunters take more in general, we are going to do away with the bow season and just extend gun season." Taking away other hunters opportunities is never a good thing.

[dbHunterNY]

No offense, but all of that is back-room math. The DEC hasn't laid out any standards set forth in any PRs or communications. The only reference is "desired levels." Anyone saying their trying to back calculate is making a large assumption - otherwise the DEC would clearly, cleanly, and simply state targets.

 

well they aren't going to and that's the info you get.  they published it so why should it be ignored.  I've seen you post over and over that they don't give out any info about their goals.  you don't think their desired levels has anything to do with their goals?  I just had a regional biologist tell me otherwise.

[moog5050]

true but access wise you're 23 acres out of 574 square miles.  over the counter or something else other than what they proposed is what's needed to have more hunters doing their part.  those of us who take our fair share can and will only take so much, which isn't enough.  even if you could and would try to take enough to balance that out, you couldn't.  laugh all you want but you just lost 14 days and late season of buck hunting.

 

Ease up db.  I was laughing because WE FAR EXCEEDED what YOU have set as the standard and its impossible to know if even what you suggest is what DEC wants since DEC won't state it.  I am no more content with these new ridiculous rules than you.  As I explained on August 13:

 

"Frankly, as Phade was suggesting earlier, DEC has created a system to its benefit that puts the BHs in a catch 22.  Either BHs will kill and report more doe in the first two weeks allowing DEC to say "see our plan is working" and continuing it.  Or, we don't kill and report more doe in the first 2 weeks allowing DEC to say "see BHs can't get it done" and we now need to go to more extreme measure by allowing guns or MLs in early season.  No way for BHs to win under these circumstances.   DEC has put themselves in a great position to do what they want in these "overpopulated" areas for the foreseeable future without risk of clear objective criticism.  Couple that with undefined goals and DEC can justify whatever they choose with regard to altering bow seasons.  Great political maneuvering but bad management if they want true results on reducing doe populations now."

[WNYBuckHunter]

I agree with this but sure would be bummed if I were BellR if I could only hunt for one deer.  I guess two with the bow doe tag.  But you are probably right.  the option is to hunt where there are more doe.

 

NY is a big state with many pieces of state land, etc. You can always get DMPs for other areas and hunt more. Plus, you have to think about the future. Improve the herd in your area today, hunt more locally in a couple/few years. And that use it anywhere in the state doe tag should be gone as well.

[WNYBuckHunter]

As far as I can tell, there are no DMP's simply because they don't issue them in the 'dacks.  I have yet to see one reason from the DEC why none have been issued for the area in my memory.  I would venture to say that in the area I hunt up north, there are probably more deer than there are in units like 4A who do have some limited numbers available, they are just harder to find since there aren't wide open fields everywhere to see them in.

 

I have no idea, never hunted there. I have always wanted to give it a go.

[phade]

well they aren't going to and that's the info you get.  they published it so why should it be ignored.  I've seen you post over and over that they don't give out any info about their goals.  you don't think their desired levels has anything to do with their goals?  I just had a regional biologist tell me otherwise

 

 

http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/103040.html

 

This is their bible to the antlerless changes

 

Where in this do they say we need to kill 10,000 does in 8h? Nowhere. What it does say is we're above "desired levels." Great.

 

So tell me again, where they've drawn the line in the sand and said if you kill X number you won't have another antlerless season? They haven't.

 

Since you are so well connected, please call Art and Jeremy and ask them. This is nothing more than an agenda move.

Edited September 2, 2015 by phade

[BellR]

I have no idea, never hunted there. I have always wanted to give it a go.

 

Once I am back up that way permanently next year I'll give you an invite up.  My father lives just inside the southern border and he has some nice ones running around up there.  They are a LOT harder to hunt and pattern because there isn't the large fields, but when you finally do connect on one it is very satisfying. 

[WNYBuckHunter]

Should you be able to shoot ANY bucks in an area that they need the doe population lowered?  If they did away with buck tags in those areas the doe take should increase.

 

I'm not arguing that this should be the case, what I am saying is stop trying to impose statewide regulations to fix a LOCAL problem.  The deer population where I hunt has been stable for years (according to DEC, I actually think it is going up). That is why they don't issue DMP's.  Stop trying to fix your problem by taking away other hunters opportunities. 

 

Forcing OBR, EAB or AR on the state would be like saying, "Since the bow hunters aren't doing their part of taking does and the gun hunters take more in general, we are going to do away with the bow season and just extend gun season." Taking away other hunters opportunities is never a good thing.

 

You never know, that might be a good strategy, at least on a temporary scale. Id say you would then have a higher than desired buck take in surrounding areas, and poaching would rise.

 

Hunter satisfaction is not a local issue, its statewide. Shoot, I live in an area with some of the best deer hunting in the state, some of the largest bucks as well. People around here still think we need ARs or something like that.

 

Again, some type of change is coming, you can bet on it. Id much rather see OBR than EAB or ARs.

[Doc]

No, you just danced around the answer. Again, buck age management is not biologically necessary, though it is inevitable because hunter satisfaction IS a necessity. Killing does is also a necessity, in some areas more than others. OBR removes the chance that someone will kill a small buck for meat, pass does and wait for Mr Big. Most likely, they will shoot a doe or two for meat along the way while waiting for Mr Big. Not everyone will, young bucks will still be taken, but Id be willing to bet the number drops pretty significantly over time. In areas that have a low population of deer, it helps to lessen the impact of additional bucks being taken. More does taken in areas that need it = positive. More bucks making it to maturity = more hunter satisfaction = positive. Hunters being able to choose what buck they care to shoot = positive. Less restrictive than Antler point or spread restrictions = positive.

 

The only negative you can come up with is change is unnecessary.

 

Sometimes I think youd rather things just stay the same because you just dont want to change. You sure like to gripe, but you rarely present any solutions to issues that satisfy anyone but yourself. You sit here and say the DEC's management sucks, but you piss and moan at every suggested change. Even the ones that have proven to work in other places. Which way do you want it? New, unfounded ideas, or proven ones? Change is inevitable.

Well, I cannot help it if you don't understand the answer, or understanding it causes you a problem. I have made it as clear as possible. I am assuming that you most likely don't want to hear it.

 

Now, as far as all these benefits that you have stated for OBR, I have to tell you that you don't really have a clue as to whether it will help with doe take. It is just as likely that hunters will fold up camp after that first and only buck is taken and without the lure of possibly running into Mr. Big, will be out of the hunting numbers where they maybe could have filled an antlerless tag or two. So that may even wind up a negative.

 

More bucks making it to maturity..... Yeah, according to the numbers of successful double buck harvests, I have to say that it approaches insignificance. So I have to say ..... Big Deal! Will hunters even notice a difference? ...... According to the numbers, the answer is probably "no".

 

Hunters being able to "choose what buck they care to shoot?" ....  Well, it looks like you are counting a situation as being positive that already exists with the current system.

 

So where is the real change that will be a positive that has any significance. There is none. And for that you would take away an existing opportunity and a motivator that keeps hunters afield possibly filling permits. And that gets me to my primary objection. This just one more hair-brained scheme to continue adding programs to eliminate hunter opportunities, the only answer that so many have these days to solve everything that they feel is wrong in the world. Wide sweeping, broad-brush denial of hunting opportunities is all anyone can offer. Ideas limited to only that kind of thinking are things that our shrinking hunter population really doesn't need.

 

So now you claim that I am against change, and perhaps you are right. I have no use for brainless changes that are put forth just for the sake of change. I also have no use for changes bent on driving hunters from our ranks by continually removing opportunities. And I also have no use for changes that completely disregard local population and habitat variations across the state. I will at least give the DEC some credit for targeting focus areas for their actions only where it is needed. I may not agree with all of it, but at least they do recognize that one size does NOT fit all. They also recognize that their prime management challenge is deer population control and they have taken a direct route to that problem, even though they have assigned the task to the wrong season.

 

Now, you want yet another positive suggestion. Sorry the DEC has partially beat me to it. My addition that I gladly offer is to take the wonderful targeted idea that they came up with based on known over-population problems, and put it in the appropriate season where it has a chance of actually working. If they decided to establish a two or three day season that was an all weapon antlerless season in those trouble areas, I would have no problem with that. You see that is a solution aimed squarely and directly at the problem and is sure to have the desired effect. 

 

As far as all the buck management activities, I would rather have them spend their resources on something a bit more fundamental and getting the most important part of their job right, rather than wasting time, money and computer bandwidth trying to cater to those that feel that big bucks are the only targets worthy of their efforts.

 

Now, if you didn't have the wherewithal to understand my first very clear answer to your question, you probably don't have a prayer at understanding any of this. But it will give you something new to sputter over .... lol.