Environmental Assessment: White-tailed Deer Damage Management in New York

[Rebel Darling]

The DEC today announced the availability of a Draft Environmental Assessment for Deer Damage Management in New York.  The Public can comment on the draft by close-of-business January 15, 2016.

 

Here is a link to the draft document:

 

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=APHIS-2015-0093-0001&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

 

Comments can be mailed to:

 

USDA APHIS Wildlife Services

1930 Route 9

Castleton, NY 12033-9653

 

Comments can be entered online here:

 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0093

[Doc]

Ok, I cannot comment on all of this until all 157 pages are read. I'll be back.

 

Scanning the material, it looks like an all-out war on deer is being launched in NYS. The effort to eliminate deer in NYS is now not only the agenda of the DEC, but also the USDA and the Department of fish and wildlife along with all of the interests of the Citizen Task Forces. This ain't a good time to be a whitetail .... lol.

[Four Season Whitetail's]

Yup this state is going into the ******* because of farmers and Ins companies,  If you have land you better protect the animals, If you dont have a lease, You better think about hooking onto one.

Just going to make another deer industry much stronger. Every year a hunter pays more for tags and see's and harvests no animals they are going to go one way or the other. Some will give up hunting altogether an others will do what it takes to get an animal.

 

I should see how many tags i could get for 750 acres just for ***** and giggles.

Edited December 18, 2015 by WNYBuckHunter
Edited for language. Please see forum TOS.

[JFB]

It blows my mind that this announcement and post does not WAKE hunters up. You posted 14 pages about how many don't see the deer like you want to, or looking for a new place to bow hunt etc, and right under your nose an announcement comes up (as was predicted) that an all out war to basically wipe out deer is next. Bend over, we're too lazy to do anything about it so get ready for phase 3. 

 

So much for land values as I just purchased 257 acres and all it takes is one "stakeholder" to light up the fields in August and do just about anything they want. And you thought nuisance tags were bad?

 

I'd love to see sportsmen organize and boycott buying licenses for a year or two. And the organizations that I thought would care (such as QDMA) appear too stumped about which food plot to plant next to care there will be few deer to eat at it. 

 

Never mind we just had two record severe winters and numbers are clearly down. NY could have widespread EHD and they would move on with their proposal. 

 

 

[DirtTime]

Wow, that's long. I glanced over it as well. When I get time to read a book I will read the whole thing. But it seams they are aiming at certain counties and not the whole state. Probably a starting point.

 

I went to the actual APHIS site and can't find this on there. Was looking for a brief overview of the topic. Perhaps the PDF link above was not supposed to be released yet?

 

The newest I could locate was from 2014 and it was about LI, not the whole state.

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/downloads/nepa/2014%20East%20End%20Deer%20Damage%20Management%20Report.pdf

 

 

 

[Rebel Darling]

Wow, that's long. I glanced over it as well. When I get time to read a book I will read the whole thing. But it seams they are aiming at certain counties and not the whole state. Probably a starting point.

 

I went to the actual APHIS site and can't find this on there. Was looking for a brief overview of the topic. Perhaps the PDF link above was not supposed to be released yet?

 

The newest I could locate was from 2014 and it was about LI, not the whole state.

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/downloads/nepa/2014%20East%20End%20Deer%20Damage%20Management%20Report.pdf

 

Hey, ...rob

 

Here's the link to APHIS:

 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0093

 

DEC put out a press release yesterday, so I'm thinking that this is live.  The draft document itself is dated November 2015.

[DirtTime]

Thank you.

[NFA-ADK]

DEC = Deer Environmental Culling?

 

Backwards CED  Cull EVERY Deer!   Much better.

 

They do not manage deer, the only concern is eliminating them.  Great way to manage deer!  And if you do not manage to cull enough of them we will do it for you at night time with silencers so you do not even know.

[gjs4]

Bad times are here and worse are ahead

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Doc]

The NYS business interests regarding deer management have taken precedence over all aspects of deer management. Oh yes they have thrown in some random words about forest regeneration and habitat, but this document as far as I have been able to determine is really all about satisfying the squeakiest wheels who claim wildlife management must now be conducted with their interests in the forefront. Business now is the primary influence in establishing deer densities. They started it all with the implementation of Citizen Task Forces in the 90s to establish allowable deer densities according to business needs and wants. And now they are expanding that principle with USDA and Federal fish and game intervention and institutionalizing it all within the DEC.

[nadunbar]

I wish DEC would go to implementing check stations and require all hunters to check deer in when they have harvested one. By doing this they could implement an earn a buck strategy that requires hunters to harvest one doe before being given a tag for a buck. I know many hunters who will pass on every doe they see because all they want to kill is a buck....

 

A prime negative example of this is my Grandfathers farm. Every year him and my uncle are given 3 dmps each and yet neither of them take a doe. This has been going on over the past 10 years and as the years went by the deer heard on this piece of property exploded to a point where we were seeing 20 - 30 deer each sit, all of which were bald, every year I filled my doe tag for muzzleloader and for bow but my efforts were futile as harvesting two doe out of such a large population did nothing to slow the herd growth, last year we were hit with a really hard winter and as an effect of this I have not seen a single deer on this property, the overcrowding helped to clean out all of the food sources for the most part, with an early snow covering the ground deer had a harder time getting to food and most died due to starvation.

 

Had we had an earn a buck program this situation would have never happened.

[The_Field_Ager]

I wish DEC would go to implementing check stations and require all hunters to check deer in when they have harvested one. By doing this they could implement an earn a buck strategy that requires hunters to harvest one doe before being given a tag for a buck. I know many hunters who will pass on every doe they see because all they want to kill is a buck....

 

 

 

Some of us however have been passing on doe because we are not seeing many in our areas. The DEC clearly has no idea what is happening where in terms of real numbers. You are basically asking some of us to take a season off. 

[WNYBuckHunter]

I wish DEC would go to implementing check stations and require all hunters to check deer in when they have harvested one. By doing this they could implement an earn a buck strategy that requires hunters to harvest one doe before being given a tag for a buck. I know many hunters who will pass on every doe they see because all they want to kill is a buck....

 

A prime negative example of this is my Grandfathers farm. Every year him and my uncle are given 3 dmps each and yet neither of them take a doe. This has been going on over the past 10 years and as the years went by the deer heard on this piece of property exploded to a point where we were seeing 20 - 30 deer each sit, all of which were bald, every year I filled my doe tag for muzzleloader and for bow but my efforts were futile as harvesting two doe out of such a large population did nothing to slow the herd growth, last year we were hit with a really hard winter and as an effect of this I have not seen a single deer on this property, the overcrowding helped to clean out all of the food sources for the most part, with an early snow covering the ground deer had a harder time getting to food and most died due to starvation.

 

Had we had an earn a buck program this situation would have never happened.

 

It may have helped a little, but if the area was that overpopulated, it wouldnt have solved the problem.

 

The DEC cant get a real grip on doe numbers for many reasons, but the first one is the current license structure. Every hunter that buys their gun, bow and muzzleloader privilege in NY essentially has 3 antlerless tags that can be used anywhere in the state. How can the DEC properly allocate DMPs based on WMU with that being the case? All antlerless harvests should be handled the way DMPs currently are, then they can begin to get a better handle on things.

 

EAB is not a good idea statewide, as there are many areas that do not have the doe numbers to support it.

 

Stop relying on the state to manage things for you, and take the initiative to learn your herd, and do whats necessary (within the limits of the laws) to control your deer population locally.

[nadunbar]

Some of us however have been passing on doe because we are not seeing many in our areas. The DEC clearly has no idea what is happening where in terms of real numbers. You are basically asking some of us to take a season off. 

 

AHH! Yes I apologize I meant for this to be WMU Specific if it was an option. Not required for the whole state.

 

Sorry for the confusion

[nadunbar]

It may have helped a little, but if the area was that overpopulated, it wouldnt have solved the problem.

 

The DEC cant get a real grip on doe numbers for many reasons, but the first one is the current license structure. Every hunter that buys their gun, bow and muzzleloader privilege in NY essentially has 3 antlerless tags that can be used anywhere in the state. How can the DEC properly allocate DMPs based on WMU with that being the case? All antlerless harvests should be handled the way DMPs currently are, then they can begin to get a better handle on things.

 

EAB is not a good idea statewide, as there are many areas that do not have the doe numbers to support it.

 

Stop relying on the state to manage things for you, and take the initiative to learn your herd, and do whats necessary (within the limits of the laws) to control your deer population locally.

Yes I agree with you it can not be a statewide regulation. There are some WMU''s however where it may help.

[Curmudgeon]

This is the release that went out last week.Emphasis in red is mine.

DEC Announces Availability of a Draft Environmental Assessment for Deer Damage Management in New York Public Invited to Comment by January 15

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Acting Commissioner Basil Seggos today announced the availability of a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) entitled "White-tailed Deer Damage Management in New York." The EA, prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services' (WS) New York Office, describes the need to manage white-tailed deer to reduce and prevent damage associated with these animals in New York; discusses potential issues associated with managing damage caused by deer; and the environmental consequences of alternatives for WS involvement in deer damage management throughout New York State.

The proposed action (preferred alternative) is to implement an integrated approach using a variety of methods to reduce deer damage. DEC issues permits to landowners, municipalities and resource management agencies to address deer damage and as a cooperating agency on this EA, DEC is encouraging the public to review and provide comments on it.

The abundance of deer in many parts of New York State is causing a myriad of problems, particularly in suburban and urban areas, where deer densities are highest. Agricultural, horticultural and silvicultural damage, impacts to biodiversity and native plant communities, and threats to human health and safety are consequences often associated with high deer populations. Deer population levels in most parts of the state are managed primarily through regulated recreational hunting, but there is typically little land accessible to hunters in developed areas.

DEC issues damage permits in situations where hunting is not able to reduce deer populations sufficiently to alleviate negative impacts. Some communities and landowners who receive permits choose to hire WS to carry out the damage reduction activities. Actions proposed in the EA could be conducted on public and private property in New York when the resource owner (property owner) or manager requests assistance, a need for action is confirmed, and agreements specifying the nature and duration of the activities to be conducted are completed. WS would conduct most deer damage management projects in urban or suburban environments and properties where access to the general public is limited due to safety or security concerns.

WS prepared the EA to facilitate planning, program management and interagency coordination, to clearly communicate with the public the analysis of the impacts of managing deer damage across the State of New York, and to consider comments from the public on the proposed action. Six types of potential adverse effects of damage management activities were analyzed in detail: effects on deer populations; effects on non-target plant and wildlife species; effects on human health and safety; effects on the socio-cultural elements of the human environment; humaneness and animal welfare concerns of methods; and effects on the regulated deer harvest. Alternatives examined in the EA include an alternative in which WS continues the current "integrated" deer damage management program; an alternative in which WS is restricted to providing technical assistance (information) only; and an alternative in which no deer damage management is conducted by WS.

The preferred alternative is for WS to continue a deer damage management program that includes the use of the full range of legal non-lethal and lethal management techniques. A major goal of the program would be to resolve and prevent damage caused by deer and to reduce threats to human safety. To meet this goal, WS, in consultation with DEC, would continue to respond to requests for assistance with, at a minimum, technical assistance, or when funding was available, operational deer damage management. Based on site-specific evaluations, property owners or managers that request assistance from WS would be provided with information regarding the use of non-lethal and lethal techniques. Preference would be given to non-lethal methods when practical and effective. After receiving any necessary DEC permits, property owners or managers could choose to implement WS' recommendations on their own, use volunteer services of private organizations, use contractual services of WS, use contractual services of other nuisance wildlife management businesses, or take no further action.

Interested parties may obtain a copy of the EA and submit comments on it by entering "APHIS-2015-0093" in the search box at the Regulations.gov website (link leaves DEC website.) Comments may also be sent to USDA APHIS Wildlife Services, 1930 Route 9, Castleton, NY 12033-9653, but electronic submission of comments is preferred. All comments must be received by the close-of-business on January 15, 2016 to receive full consideration. All comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record and will be released for public review as required and allowed by law.

[ELMER J. FUDD]

I'd love to see recovery rights guaranteed one day...

[gillet598]

The liberal agenda strikes again.

I'm a farmer and a hunter. Not all farmers want to see all the deer dead. We live in an urban area and the worst places for deer damage are in the villages where hunting is not allowed. The DEC needs to force the villages to allow legal hunting and otherwise stay out.

[Curmudgeon]

The liberal agenda strikes again.

I'm a farmer and a hunter. Not all farmers want to see all the deer dead. We live in an urban area and the worst places for deer damage are in the villages where hunting is not allowed. The DEC needs to force the villages to allow legal hunting and otherwise stay out.

 

 

I don't understand how reducing deer numbers is part of the "liberal agenda". I would think the liberals would want to protect the deer.

 

Forcing villages to allow hunting sounds pretty authoritarian.

[The_Field_Ager]

Forcing villages to allow hunting sounds pretty authoritarian.

 

 

If the problem of deer overpopulation and damage is an urban issue, but local leadership, for fuzzy and liberal reasons, doesn't want to see a cull, then perhaps authority duly exercised is what is called for. What is the point of having authority if not for the benefit  of man and beast alike? If such a use of power is authoritarian, can someone explain why that is a bad thing?

Edited December 21, 2015 by Papist

[Curmudgeon]

If local residents in suburban/urban areas are willing to put up with excessive deer numbers, their local representatives should do what they want. These areas are already ruined ecologically - at least for any species of concern. If Cayuga Heights residents want to trap does and tie their tubes so as not to conflict with their Disney values, it's their money.

 

Parks and areas of natural habitat of any significant size are a different matter.

[chas0218]

I wish DEC would go to implementing check stations and require all hunters to check deer in when they have harvested one. By doing this they could implement an earn a buck strategy that requires hunters to harvest one doe before being given a tag for a buck. I know many hunters who will pass on every doe they see because all they want to kill is a buck....

A prime negative example of this is my Grandfathers farm. Every year him and my uncle are given 3 dmps each and yet neither of them take a doe. This has been going on over the past 10 years and as the years went by the deer heard on this piece of property exploded to a point where we were seeing 20 - 30 deer each sit, all of which were bald, every year I filled my doe tag for muzzleloader and for bow but my efforts were futile as harvesting two doe out of such a large population did nothing to slow the herd growth, last year we were hit with a really hard winter and as an effect of this I have not seen a single deer on this property, the overcrowding helped to clean out all of the food sources for the most part, with an early snow covering the ground deer had a harder time getting to food and most died due to starvation.

Had we had an earn a buck program this situation would have never happened.

Earn a buck program only works if you have the man power which DEC does not have. Add antler restrictions which would work the same way causing a person to take a doe instead of that spike chasing a non hot doe. They're would be no need for checks and would please majority of people except those that like to shoot 1.5 year old deer. Edited December 22, 2015 by chas0218

[Rebel Darling]

I haven't yet read the document in its entirety, nor have I decided on a perspective for what I reason to be the best approach, but my first reaction to neutering does or castrating bucks is that it's a cruelty beyond exposure to hunting pressure and the possibility of death (read sacrifice for another life).  In a sense, the neutering and castrating of a wild animal, in effect, wastes the life of the animal whose purpose, in addition to others (perhaps), is to procreate. 

 

In addition, large, dense numbers of prey animals will engender greater predator activity.  At the point at which we have brought greater numbers of coyotes or others into suburban areas through non-lethal management of deer will we then proceed with non-lethal management of predators?  I doubt it.  In my opinion, that scenario would lead to a cull that produces numbers considered barbaric, but will be painted as humane because family cats disappear.

 

At the root, and in my experience, awareness of the benefits of hunting (life for life) is low, and I'm curious to know what the tolerance of deer presence will be when ticks are a concern in community gardens, city parks, playgrounds, the Mother's Day tulips disappear, and hard winters leave doe carcasses by the backyard swing set.

 

I am a new hunter, and I have a lot to learn about many, many things, but to exclude hunters as an option or available resource to utilize appears to present the discussion as less than fully articulated.

Edited December 22, 2015 by RebelDarling

[Doc]

There seems to be some misunderstanding that deer numbers are impossible to control. It really doesn't take EAB or any of the fancy abbreviation brain-farts. All it really takes is to convert some portion of regular gun season to doe only, and you can eliminate all the deer you want to. And I am quite sure that the DEC is preparing a plan to justify whatever the financial interests of the state are lobbying for.

[Four Season Whitetail's]

There seems to be some misunderstanding that deer numbers are impossible to control. It really doesn't take EAB or any of the fancy abbreviation brain-farts. All it really takes is to convert some portion of regular gun season to doe only, and you can eliminate all the deer you want to. And I am quite sure that the DEC is preparing a plan to justify whatever the financial interests of the state are lobbying for.

No Doubt, Doc you know as well as i do that the Ny DEC will do whatever it takes to get money from hunters. Now things may be getting tight now that farmers and Ins companies are on their arse to keep numbers down. This year alone i would bet some hang up hunting because of no deer sighting. DEC has to figure what pays better...Hunters or Farms and Ins companies?