Deer and Deer Management in NYS Webinar

[peepsight]

Anybody get invited to this:

 

Thank you for registering for the “Deer and Deer Management in New York State” webinar series taking place on Wednesday, January 20 ^th , and Wednesday, January 27 ^th, from 7:00-8:15 pm.

Complete details on how to connect to the webinars will be emailed to you at least 5 days in advance of the first webinar.
 
Please note that a high-speed internet connection such as LAN, DSL, satellite, or cable is needed to view the webinars. Phone modems cannot effectively transmit data.
 
While you are welcome to participate in the webinars from the comfort of your own home, we encourage you to join other interested attendees at one of 3 on-site viewing locations hosted by Cornell Cooperative Extension:
 

Cayuga County, Aurora, NY – Wells College, Room 212 Zabriskie Hall
Seneca County, Waterloo, NY – Seneca County CCE Office - 308 Main Street Shop Centre
Tompkins County, Trumansburg, NY – Village of Trumansburg Office, 56 E. Main St.

 

http://www.dec.ny.gov/press/103053.html

[Lawdwaz]

Not me.

[growalot]

Never heard of it..and I get DEC alerts

[Curmudgeon]

I'm registered. We'll see if it is worth my time.

[Doc]

Why is this not available to the general public? Is there a cost issue involved? I don't know anything about webinars in terms of how they work or what costs that might be involved to the DEC for large audiences. But unless there is an impracticality to opening participation to the general public, this sounds like it might be of interest to a lot more people than just a few hand-picked individuals.

[peepsight]

I don't know that it isn't for the general public. I was on copy of an email that originated with the Seneca County Federation of Sportsman's Clubs. Here's what came attached:

 

 

Deer and Deer Management in New York State - webinar series promotional final.pdf

[phade]

Its a pilot for new data collection. pilot is key word.

[dbHunterNY]

seems to be focused around the central NY.  not sure if i'll do it yet.  kind of interested though.

[peepsight]

I see there is an article in the Outdoor News on this.

[Steve D]

From The DEC Website

 

"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."

[chas0218]

Why are they only including those WMU/parts of those WMU? Is it only because of the grape growers/wineries that want the deer gone? They cut it off in 8F just below where our hunting property is maybe 6 miles as the crow flies.

[phade]

Its a pilot study....

[RoadKill44]

I saw it and signed up for it out of interest. However, I have no experience with webinars. So, I’m unsure whether I’ll make the connection or not.

 

For two years now I’ve bow hunted in a suburban backyard where deer are destroying the landowner’s (a friend) landscaping and garden.  It’s a real deer management problem and is part of the driving force to the “Doe Only” regulations that hit the northwestern Wildlife Management Units this last year.  Although my suburb hunting is in WMU 8H and not in that area, I still want to see what might be going on in the way of Suburban Deer Management if they happen to touch on that topic.

 

As a meat hunter I’m more than happy to help a comrade with a deer problem. 

 

[mike rossi]

 

I saw it and signed up for it out of interest. However, I have no experience with webinars. So, I’m unsure whether I’ll make the connection or not.

 

For two years now I’ve bow hunted in a suburban backyard where deer are destroying the landowner’s (a friend) landscaping and garden.  It’s a real deer management problem and is part of the driving force to the “Doe Only” regulations that hit the northwestern Wildlife Management Units this last year.  Although my suburb hunting is in WMU 8H and not in that area, I still want to see what might be going on in the way of Suburban Deer Management if they happen to touch on that topic.

 

As a meat hunter I’m more than happy to help a comrade with a deer problem. 

 

 

You can easily get some practice because webinars are very common. Just find any old webinar, it does not have to be anything from the DEC, hunting related, or even something you are interested in. Just get some "practice". Otherwise when you want to participate in one you are interested in, such as this one, you might experience  "technical problems".

 

This is the wave of the future, so it is a good idea for people to start getting familiar with webinars. We (NY Dove Hunting) want to start using them, but they have not yet caught on with many people in the hunting community. 

[goodtamer]

I'm registered.

[RoadKill44]

You can easily get some practice because webinars are very common. Just find any old webinar, it does not have to be anything from the DEC, hunting related, or even something you are interested in. Just get some "practice". Otherwise when you want to participate in one you are interested in, such as this one, you might experience  "technical problems".

 

This is the wave of the future, so it is a good idea for people to start getting familiar with webinars. We (NY Dove Hunting) want to start using them, but they have not yet caught on with many people in the hunting community. 

 

Dang technology. I joined a hunting website and now I'm registered for a genealogy webinar for practice. Who knows where that will lead. Thanks Mike R

[Fletch]

I'm registered. Unfortunately I am on too many webinars lol.

 

I am CNY so very interested.

[peepsight]

Well .... I attended this via the webinar (online presentation). Can't say I know anymore about where it's going now than I did before I attended. They laid the groundwork at a very basic level and next week we'll know more. 

[chas0218]

Yeah I listened online through the whole thing and don't know anymore than when I started. I hope the 2nd part is a little more informative. What I did get out of it is they want to change the break-up of the WMU's into aggregates (larger WMUs).

 

I'm not sure who asked the question about it being is counter intuitive to make the WMUs larger but I don't know their reasoning behind it, they responded "no it would make little difference and allow them to more accurately collect data." I always thought it would be more accurate knowing where exactly the harvest came from and the amount of deer taken. Maybe to allow more DMPs in areas they want more deer taken but currently don't give out that many DMPs based on hunter opinions. I just don't know what their reasoning is I mean if it isn't broke don't fix it.

 

Maybe that is what the reason for the pilot study is. See if larger WMUs will fix their deer kill numbers so more deer are killed.

 

Someone also asked a question about insurance companies approaching DEC about lowering deer population numbers and he said in the 17 years (not sure of the exact number now but was in the teens) he worked for DEC he had never been approached by insurance companies nor anyone else he has been in contact with.

 

It was informative about deer but not really anything about the pilot study.

 

What I found interesting are the numbers they came up with in 4 or 6 years 2 deer can become 64 deer. I call B.S. and they should know better not every doe drops 2 doe fawns to 1 buck fawn. I have seen doe on numerous occasions that have dropped 2 bucks. If that were the case we would see a lot more deer in my area with us and my neighbors selectively harvesting mature deer. 

[peepsight]

You summed it up nicely ........

[RoadKill44]

That 2 deer to 64 deer refers to the situation where 100% of the deer survive in a perfect habitat with no predators or diseases. One buck and one doe (2 deer) will cause the doe to make 2 fawn (first year 4 deer). Assuming fawn are averaging one buck and one doe each year there are two breading doe which produce 4 deer the next year (second year 8 deer). and so on. each year they double. Hence 2-4-8-16-32-64 is the potential growth rate. That doesn't happen because 20% of new fawns are killed buy predators, some 80,000 are hit by cars and another 250,000 are killed by hunters. Other stuff like disease and old age make the NYS deer population to remain constant. 1 million NYS deer lasts year and 1 million deer this year.

 

The  three or four WMU per aggregate is to solve a statistic problem. They aren't changing the WMU to make them larger. They are just using three or four WMU at the same time in this study to collect data in larger quantities. It's all a game of mathematical guesstimations. The bigger the area of study the better the guesstimation. I think the rule is that three times the data means nine times the accuracy of the guesstimation. But maybe somebody more into statistics can correct me. My last statistics class was more than 30 years ago.

 

The rest of the message related to changing how they planned to hold meetings and how they intend to get more people involved. I still don't understand what that's all about. Sounds like a bigger bureaucracy where there are more people to disagree. In the end there are just as many upset with the outcome. Then again it could end up favoring the hunter.

[Doc]

 

Someone also asked a question about insurance companies approaching DEC about lowering deer population numbers and he said in the 17 years (not sure of the exact number now but was in the teens) he worked for DEC he had never been approached by insurance companies nor anyone else he has been in contact with.

 

On the DEC page that discusses CTFs, they had the following description of "stakeholders":

Stakeholders are people affected by deer who have a particular concern or interest in the overall population of deer in a WMU. Farmers, hunters, foresters, conservationists, motorists, the tourism industry, landowners, small business, etc., are all considered as potentially distinct stakeholder groups.

 

Apparently when they list Motorists, they must be referring to AAA .... lol. By the way, the people on these CTFs are the ones that canvass whatever financial interests that they represent and input their combined recommendations about desired deer densities and harvest goals. So if the Motorists stakeholder category listed is referring to or including insurance companies, then indeed, the insurance companies are not only "approaching" the DEC, but they have an official part in dictating the deer densities around the state.

[chas0218]

That 2 deer to 64 deer refers to the situation where 100% of the deer survive in a perfect habitat with no predators or diseases. One buck and one doe (2 deer) will cause the doe to make 2 fawn (first year 4 deer). Assuming fawn are averaging one buck and one doe each year there are two breading doe which produce 4 deer the next year (second year 8 deer). and so on. each year they double. Hence 2-4-8-16-32-64 is the potential growth rate. That doesn't happen because 20% of new fawns are killed buy predators, some 80,000 are hit by cars and another 250,000 are killed by hunters. Other stuff like disease and old age make the NYS deer population to remain constant. 1 million NYS deer lasts year and 1 million deer this year.

 

The  three or four WMU per aggregate is to solve a statistic problem. They aren't changing the WMU to make them larger. They are just using three or four WMU at the same time in this study to collect data in larger quantities. It's all a game of mathematical guesstimations. The bigger the area of study the better the guesstimation. I think the rule is that three times the data means nine times the accuracy of the guesstimation. But maybe somebody more into statistics can correct me. My last statistics class was more than 30 years ago.

 

The rest of the message related to changing how they planned to hold meetings and how they intend to get more people involved. I still don't understand what that's all about. Sounds like a bigger bureaucracy where there are more people to disagree. In the end there are just as many upset with the outcome. Then again it could end up favoring the hunter.

I understand the math behind it but they are assuming perfect conditions. They also stated that death by predator accounts for less than 2% of deer deaths. Along with motorists and such, they then said deer are a problem with vehicle to deer accidents. Well if it accounts for less than 2% then why is it a problem....

 

Doc this is what you are referring to with the insurance companies, they must have some say.

Edited January 22, 2016 by chas0218

[Curmudgeon]

I understand the math behind it but they are assuming perfect conditions. They also stated that death by predator accounts for less than 2% of deer deaths. Along with motorists and such, they then said deer are a problem with vehicle to deer accidents. Well if it accounts for less than 2% then why is it a problem....

 

Doc this is what you are referring to with the insurance companies, they must have some say.

If true - and I have no reason to believe it isn't - it shows how wrong all the coyote hatred is. Now PA lawmakers want to spend taxpayer money for bounties to solve the non-existent coyote problem.

[RoadKill44]

I understand the math behind it but they are assuming perfect conditions. They also stated that death by predator accounts for less than 2% of deer deaths. Along with motorists and such, they then said deer are a problem with vehicle to deer accidents. Well if it accounts for less than 2% then why is it a problem....

 

Doc this is what you are referring to with the insurance companies, they must have some say.

I think the 2% number refers to adult deer deaths. Most documents I've read (Michigan, PA and others) report 20% predator deaths among fawns. Many of the so called factual numbers vary in many different reports.  The deer reproduction rate use in the webinar (for instance) used deer population doubling every year (2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64 growth). In the Bowhunter Education class the manual teaches a growth rate of about 60% (2, 4, 6, 10, 16, 26 growth). There's a big difference between 64 deer and 26 deer. I believe the latter to closer to the truth. I guess my point is, it's all about guesstinations and people in the know can't even agree.

 

"There are 1 million deer in NYS". This is a guess because there's no way to actually count every deer. This number has remained pretty much the same over the last 4 or 5 years. Yet there are a lot fewer deer, according to hunters, and many more deer, according to farmers and suburban dwellers. So who's guess is going to be closer to the truth? Those actually using and improving on scientific methods to count deer or by popular opinion from various groups. The NY state reported 238,672 deer were taken in 2014. It looks like a precise number but it's a guess. Using statistics they believe they are right within plus or minus 10,000 or so deer.