Education Event- Deer Management in NYS

[beachpeaz]

You do realize that DEC is tasked with managing deer and not antlers right?  If you are focused on managing the deer themselves, the numbers should be the only thing you consider.  If you want to manage antlers on your property that's up to you.

 

I agree with your statement.  The problem is, the DEC doesn't know how to manage deer! 

 

They laid claim to the following "fact" at the meeting of 45% reported harvest rate.  Jeremy (our lead Biologist for the DEC) said that they had about 200,000 reported deer harvests in 2014.  So here is the burning question, how the HELL do they know how many deer were actually shot to come up with that 45% number.  You can't know what you don't know.   And if anyone regurgitates in here and DEC BS saying that they go to taxidermists and check points, check tags, write down names and cross-reference that to actual tag numbers called in to come up with a number, you are kidding yourself.

 

Like my previous post with a sample size of 1/4 of 1% they use to extrapolate data for the entire hunting population, their deer "harvest" sample size is even smaller than that.  There is not larger guessing game on this planet then what our DEC does each year in how many deer exist and how many are harvested. 

 

Case in point is the last paragraph I typed in my previous post about the conversation that transpired between an audience member and the local DEC Biologist for that region in which the guy flat out said they didn't take in account the huge winter kills the prior 2 years in their "increase doe harvest" plan they ignorantly adapted in 2015.  

 

So, shoot more deer, because there are too many deer, but hey, we don't know how many deer there are and we don't take into account things like harsh winters when we extrapolate date.  Holy Hell if that doesn't scream incompetence.

[phade]

It went well. They discussed the logic and math behind the model, major changes to their CTF program to better incorporate environment and biological indicators, very good info on what DEC can actually do vs what is tied to legislative actions. They discussed the buck zones and the math and responses behind the surveys and how the data was used.  They fielded questions and answered as many as we could fit in. They explained how the education initiative was decided on for buck management  and how the data from the regions across the state was used to do that. They did and will be asking for input on ideas about promoting that education. I think they took the questions seriously and never got the feeling that they were answering off scripted talking points. 

 

They discussed the doe permitting and some of the hurdles they face becasue of our current computer software and system.

 

I have to be honest though. I was disappointed in the turn out. It was fairly typical in size for one of our education events but I expected it to be higher with all the comments I have heard about hunter displeasure with previous programs and the DEC. I guess hunters just like to bitch  behind a keyboard or over a beer but when it come time to expend a little effort to make a change we fall short. 

 

An excuse that represents precisely how inaction takes place in gov't agencies. Point fingers around in a circle and blame it on a inanimate object ultimately. We can't manage because of our "system." Scapegoating at its finest. Doe management is a priority for the DEC as evidenced by their actions, yet they bank on inaction due to a system, and demonstrate in the box thinking constraints. Let's not forget, someone is responsible for the system - it just isn't creating boundaries on its own free will.

 

As to turnout, I figured less than 100 people would be there anyhow because it was mostly educational and I suspect many people were unaware of it - I read quite a few FB posts this morning from people in the area in response to someone who attended and most didn't know it was going on, and some of these people I believe I have seen at the QDMA banquet or the field days, or know people who are in the chapter.

 

Compare it to the DEC driven town hall meetings 10 years ago when they were jamming the MZ in bow season, and there were standing room only crowds and people literally threatening Batchellor's life (this was when he was still w/furbearer management, too). People were turned away from attending at the door.

 

Then add in Spring Break and the excuses go on and on.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I agree with your statement.  The problem is, the DEC doesn't know how to manage deer! 

 

They laid claim to the following "fact" at the meeting of 45% reported harvest rate.  Jeremy (our lead Biologist for the DEC) said that they had about 200,000 reported deer harvests in 2014.  So here is the burning question, how the HELL do they know how many deer were actually shot to come up with that 45% number.  You can't know what you don't know.   And if anyone regurgitates in here and DEC BS saying that they go to taxidermists and check points, check tags, write down names and cross-reference that to actual tag numbers called in to come up with a number, you are kidding yourself.

 

Like my previous post with a sample size of 1/4 of 1% they use to extrapolate data for the entire hunting population, their deer "harvest" sample size is even smaller than that.  There is not larger guessing game on this planet then what our DEC does each year in how many deer exist and how many are harvested. 

 

Case in point is the last paragraph I typed in my previous post about the conversation that transpired between an audience member and the local DEC Biologist for that region in which the guy flat out said they didn't take in account the huge winter kills the prior 2 years in their "increase doe harvest" plan they ignorantly adapted in 2015.  

 

So, shoot more deer, because there are too many deer, but hey, we don't know how many deer there are and we don't take into account things like harsh winters when we extrapolate date.  Holy Hell if that doesn't scream incompetence.

What did Art say about their management on a WMU level and OUR responsibility on a local level?

 

I didn't expect everyone that was there to be satisfied with the comments, answers and information. It was evident by some of there questions that no matter the answers they wouldn't be accepting. I din't agree with everything said but I was able to take away some useful information and I didn't see their asking for input as a negative. Isn't that what we are always saying? Why won't they listen to us?

[NFA-ADK]

Yep, pretty much sums up what I am talking about.  You know why no one goes to these meeting because we know it has no effect!   What is the point in stating my opinion when the DEC already put in the plan with no regard to the actual population issues, as long as we keep the numbers down we are doing our job?  Great work DEC.  The politicians love you, no so much from hunters. 

 

Simply put the DEC is not doing a good job unless you are a politician or insurance company who only want deer culled.  Or you are a Idiot that only wants snipers to kill deer at night so you do not have to see any actual deer killed.  Then you think the DEC is great! 

 

Thanks Beachpeaz for reinforcing my point.  Great points in both posts!

 

I don't blame the DEC, most of the time their hands are tied.  And yes we see no point in stating what needs to be done at these meetings because we know it will fall on deaf ears and tied hands!   Most are starting to manage the deer how they want with regulating doe take and antler restrictions because the DEC does not care if you have no deer in your area as long as the population is down.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I am sorry, You guys are right. They suck, organizations suck, our system sucks, our deer hunting sucks. Hard to believe that we take part in something that brings us such displeasure. 

 

Anyone wanna good deal on some guns and a really nice bow?

[NFA-ADK]

It's not the hunting we think that sucks it is the management of the deer!  But if they keep going and keep killing doe to satisfy politicians and urban idiots then we will have no deer. 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

It's not the hunting we think that sucks it is the management of the deer!  But if they keep going and keep killing doe to satisfy politicians and urban idiots then we will have no deer. 

Perfect comment from last night. If you aren't seeing them locally, then don't shoot them. I know self restraint is a dirty word in our liberal state. 

 

I apologize for wasting the time of everyone here. Good luck with your efforts to change the system that I am sure you are involved in.  hope it turns out well. 

Edited March 24, 2016 by Culvercreek hunt club

[beachpeaz]

What did Art say about their management on a WMU level and OUR responsibility on a local level?

 

I didn't expect everyone that was there to be satisfied with the comments, answers and information. It was evident by some of there questions that no matter the answers they wouldn't be accepting. I din't agree with everything said but I was able to take away some useful information and I didn't see their asking for input as a negative. Isn't that what we are always saying? Why won't they listen to us?

 

I don't think you read what I wrote.  My contention has nothing to do with them asking opinions. I thanked them for their time as I appreciate the fact that they did in fact at least show up.

 

I contest the basis of their information.  It is not grounded in facts.  They regurgitated a bunch of BS as if it was a room full of ignorant people who don't see through it.  They would be better off not doing ANY studies then they are to base studies in statistically irrelevant (and perhaps biased information).

 

I own and run a successful business.  I will tell you for a fact that at a MINIMUM 3% will return some statistically relevant information.  10-15% is ideal.  So, IF the DEC wants an opinion, with 550,000 licensed hunters in the state, at a MINIMUM there should 16,500 results.  Ideally that number should be closer to 60,000.  Their results of 2,800 for 7 units (400 people per unit) is incompetent and lazy.  They should either do the studies correctly (if they value the opinion as both Jeremy and Art mentioned many times with comments like "hunter surveys are the cornerstone of our research.") OR don't do ANY survey's and compile data with other resources. I personally do not care which method they chose, hunter feed back or not, but IF they chose a path, be responsible and do it correctly.

 

I also didn't once type anything about being in support of any specific plan.  To each their own on what is shot.  I specifically laid reference to the guy who spoke and said manage your own property and don't rely on the DEC.  I applaud that effort.  On a micro level, the HUNTER needs to be responsible.  The DEC will never (nor should they) manage at that level.  At a macro level, they  SHOULD be competent though.  If they can't be, then what are they being paid for?

[WNYBuckHunter]

Its funny, I hear things all the time exactly like what you hear here. people pissing and moaning about how the system sucks, the DEC sucks, they don't manage the deer correctly, blah blah blah. Then when an opportunity comes up to interact with the DEC, and make their opinions and ideas known, they say "Those meetings are a waste of time", they don't bother joining any organizations or becoming active in the process, and then they sit there and wonder why nothing changes, or the changes that do happen do not take their ideas into consideration.

 

Sounds like a bunch of Bernie supporters.

 

 

[RoadKill44]

At the risk of being pounced on by BP, I thought the meeting went well too. It was informative and I believe the DEC is doing their best to work toward solving issues. No, they don't have solid numbers there is no way to count every deer. I heard complaints about not an accurate population count but where IS the solution. I think they are doing their best with the funds and man power they have. There's just no way to solve everybody's problems.

 

If there was any failure of the meeting it was the lack of participation. 45 to 50 is not a good turn out. I thank the QDMA and DEC for the opportunity to hear and be heard.

 

 

 

 

 

[beachpeaz]

At the risk of being pounced on by BP, I thought the meeting went well too. It was informative and I believe the DEC is doing their best to work toward solving issues. No, they don't have solid numbers there is no way to count every deer. I heard complaints about not an accurate population count but where IS the solution. I think they are doing their best with the funds and man power they have. There's just no way to solve everybody's problems.

 

If there was any failure of the meeting it was the lack of participation. 45 to 50 is not a good turn out. I thank the QDMA and DEC for the opportunity to hear and be heard.

 

I'm not one of those people RoadKill.  I believe everyone is entitled to an opinion and respect other peoples opinions.  I don't believe I have attacked anyone's POV in this forum.  I only contest how the DEC misleads people.

 

You are right, they can't solve everyone's problems.  Some of the questions last night (or comments) were downright ridiculous.  People come to the meeting like a kid sitting on the Mall Santa's lap thinking they can fulfill wishlists. 

 

The DEC has PLENTY of funding to do a better job.  People who site "they do the best they can" just do not know the facts.  Our state has an agenda that is absent of appeasing hunters.  That is fine.  Nobody said that the DEC's priority should be to make people's hunting dreams come true.  But, they should be MUCH more transparent in what their plan is, where the information comes from and stop misleading the children in line to get a new scooter.

[dbHunterNY]

i expected more would show up.  that said my experience has shown me that these things often don't get a huge turn out.  I would've been there if it wasn't 5 hours away.  There's a lot of operational costs DEC is responsible for.  DEC's funding might seem like a lot but IMO there's no way I could justify commenting without knowing the breakdown of their actual budget.  There's no reason for the state (DEC) to be timid about how much they can spend on things like conservation and education.  it'd be a waste of PR.

[phade]

The DEC is responsible for alot and accountable for very little to the hunter. I do believe this in part drives the apathy. Culver is 100% right, however, that there should be more engagement from hunters on many levels, me included. My observation is that It is simply a challenge many feel defeated on before they even start, and it drives the results we get to live with. It is what it is.

 

The very basis of our issue is the control of management (I am speaking of the components the gov't manages). It is outside the public's ability to hold the people who make decisions accountable. Sure we can provide input - but that is it. What happens if the masses believe we don't have the right people in the job? What recourse is there? Write and provide input? Been there, done that, and voting is probably the most impactful based on the way the department is led. Again, done that.

 

From my understanding, the DEC admitted that populations this past season were lower for many of the areas they thought "overrun"  or even at capacity due to the back to back poor winters. I have posted about this concern early in 2015 as being a potential repeat of the season 10-12 years ago where deer numbers plummeted. While we thankfully didn't  have it happen at that level (lucky we had the winter we did, too), it still happened to a lesser degree. The DEC's response that the population regenerates in a few generations is true and I very much understand it, but I find it questionable practice to allow it to happen in the first place when all data points to that happening. These are in large the same people who allowed the fiasco 10-12 years ago with the over-issue of the DMPs/antlerless/damage tags. Sure, trigger restraint is on the hunter. But, where is that line drawn with wide-scale mismanagement of the resource by those paid to do so? Yet, here they remain, entrenched in their jobs and even given praise for their body of work, and specifically by QDMA staffers for their data collection methods (just observations, not stating my opinion on whether they were warranted or not).

 

These are also largely the same people who contracted with the vendor for the tag system 10-12 years ago that allowed hunters to apply for WMUs where tags were not allowed, thus wasting a selection. Even worse was the fact that when Joe Bob retail associate screwed up the selection the hunter wanted, there was no recourse except for a drawn out communication process that took weeks to resolve. And, a litany of other imperfections. These same DEC people contracted another vendor a few years back, after learning their lesson the first time, didn't fix either of these issues in the second contract/product, and basically boxed themselves in during requirements gathering, which now prevents them from managing a priority as they ID it (doe management) because of the "system." A priority that was well known and ranked high on their list at the time of that second contract, yet completely ignored when in the requirements phase of the vehicle they would need to 100% rely on.

 

There's plenty of other examples, but these are two that I believe are signs of mismanagement of the resource by those in position. One of these people in position was even purported as "having his head up his azz" by someone in this very thread and I believe he is spot on, yet that person in position remains entrenched.

 

None of these people are in jeopardy of their livelihood. I wish I had that luxury in private sector. Responsible for a lot and accountable for very little.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 24, 2016 by phade

[Four Season Whitetail's]

Its funny, I hear things all the time exactly like what you hear here. people pissing and moaning about how the system sucks, the DEC sucks, they don't manage the deer correctly, blah blah blah. Then when an opportunity comes up to interact with the DEC, and make their opinions and ideas known, they say "Those meetings are a waste of time", they don't bother joining any organizations or becoming active in the process, and then they sit there and wonder why nothing changes, or the changes that do happen do not take their ideas into consideration.

 

Sounds like a bunch of Bernie supporters.

LOL..Cant argue with that but after so many years of failed moves by them some of us years ago made the choice to make the decisions on their piece of property...Some right, Some wrong but truth is when you have so much of your live vested into something you love and a law made up by clueless politics??  Some have decided to opt out of the mess and do things their way. Sad but true.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I want to make one more comment and then I am letting this go. i stick to my comment that I feel it went well. As a branch we had no illusions that there would be some great epiphany and all the ills would be cured.  we had a couple goals. 

 

As I said, I was disappointed in the turnout. It was on multiple sites, outdoor news, facebook and I expected more. As a branch we will be looking into other avenues to promote the events. Same resources are used for the banquet and we may hit a new high this year at 300 attendees. 

 

We wanted to hear the DEC, have a dialogue with them and offer members and the general hunting public the chance to hear and voice their concerns. I can't get into details at this point but there may be an opportunity for further and more detailed discussion and input down the road and sitting on the outside and complaining isn't how anything in NY ever changes, all that does is raise our blood pressure and mine is high enough...lol.  I am very happy with the branches efforts and I can speak for all the members when I say we are committed to trying to better things.   I can't guarantee anything but we are going to try. If we fell short in some peoples eyes, I feel badly about that. 

Edited March 24, 2016 by Culvercreek hunt club

[beachpeaz]

The DEC is responsible for alot and accountable for very little to the hunter. I do believe this in part drives the apathy. Culver is 100% right, however, that there should be more engagement from hunters on many levels, me included. My observation is that It is simply a challenge many feel defeated on before they even start, and it drives the results we get to live with. It is what it is.

 

The very basis of our issue is the control of management (I am speaking of the components the gov't manages). It is outside the public's ability to hold the people who make decisions accountable. Sure we can provide input - but that is it. What happens if the masses believe we don't have the right people in the job? What recourse is there? Write and provide input? Been there, done that, and voting is probably the most impactful based on the way the department is led. Again, done that.

 

From my understanding, the DEC admitted that populations this past season were lower for many of the areas they thought "overrun"  or even at capacity due to the back to back poor winters. I have posted about this concern early in 2015 as being a potential repeat of the season 10-12 years ago where deer numbers plummeted. While we thankfully didn't  have it happen at that level (lucky we had the winter we did, too), it still happened to a lesser degree. The DEC's response that the population regenerates in a few generations is true and I very much understand it, but I find it questionable practice to allow it to happen in the first place when all data points to that happening. These are in large the same people who allowed the fiasco 10-12 years ago with the over-issue of the DMPs/antlerless/damage tags. Sure, trigger restraint is on the hunter. But, where is that line drawn with wide-scale mismanagement of the resource by those paid to do so? Yet, here they remain, entrenched in their jobs and even given praise for their body of work, and specifically by QDMA staffers for their data collection methods (just observations, not stating my opinion on whether they were warranted or not).

 

These are also largely the same people who contracted with the vendor for the tag system 10-12 years ago that allowed hunters to apply for WMUs where tags were not allowed, thus wasting a selection. Even worse was the fact that when Joe Bob retail associate screwed up the selection the hunter wanted, there was no recourse except for a drawn out communication process that took weeks to resolve. And, a litany of other imperfections. These same DEC people contracted another vendor a few years back, after learning their lesson the first time, didn't fix either of these issues in the second contract/product, and basically boxed themselves in during requirements gathering, which now prevents them from managing a priority as they ID it (doe management) because of the "system." A priority that was well known and ranked high on their list at the time of that second contract, yet completely ignored when in the requirements phase of the vehicle they would need to 100% rely on.

 

There's plenty of other examples, but these are two that I believe are signs of mismanagement of the resource by those in position. One of these people in position was even purported as "having his head up his azz" by someone in this very thread and I believe he is spot on, yet that person in position remains entrenched.

 

None of these people are in jeopardy of their livelihood. I wish I had that luxury in private sector. Responsible for a lot and accountable for very little.

 

I agree with what you wrote.  I would take that even one step further.  I tried explaining this in my prior posts, but as always, people resort to a defensive nature and get off topic with comments like "a Bernie support," "At risk of being attacked by.....,"  yadda, yadda, yadda.

 

Listen, everyone is entitled to their opinion.  I APPRECIATED the fact the event was even arranged and that they did show up to present any information (even if in MY opinion it was flawed).  I never attacked anyone, I simply questioned the information.  People should learn to question information.

 

With that said, my entire point boils down to this message:

 

The DEC (and our esteemed biologists) are NOT paid to manage hunter expectations.  Anyone who think they are has drank the Kool-Aide.  It is IMPOSSIBLE to manage hunter expectations because the variance in those expectations varies so greatly.  Not just from unit to unit, but from town to town, property to property and even people on the same property.

 

My argument boils to down to the simple fact that, once we accept the DEC is not in the business of making hunters happy, then why provide the illusion they are....AKA, that ridiculous survey that was conducted and the "cornerstone of their research."

 

The DEC has 2 choices to make.....

 

1) Manage hunting based on hunter expectations.  This would be accomplished by conducting a proper study of a much larger group of people, formulating results and basically saying "hey, the majority has spoken, this is what we are doing, deal with it."  Those who are not happy can then blame the majority and not the DEC because they are only doing what they were "elected" to do (no different than a gov't official).

 

or

 

2) Remove the court of public opinion completely out of it.  Manage the state wildlife based on biological and ecological research (which their background is supposed to be in) and tell hunters that hunting is a privileged and either enjoy what is offered or don't participate.

 

Our current system lives in a grey area between those 2 models.  They act like they want opinion, but then only ask 400 people per 150,000, cram ridiculous reactive solutions down our throat and THEN fall back on biological and ecological reasons for change.  Well, which is it?  No more illusions.

 

This should be black and white.  And, if it were, you would have a lot less issues.  Transparency is always key when you are dealing with that much diversity in opinions.

 

At the end of the day, I would chose #2.  The DEC should simply manage at a Macro level, based on biological and ecological concerns ONLY, remove public opinion out of it, and allow the hunters and the hunter associations (like the QDMA) to attempt to appease property owners / hunters at a micro level.

Edited March 25, 2016 by beachpeaz

[phade]

Or 3, hire a deer czar to balance hunter input with biology.

[gjs4]

Wow- was going to play a game of "who are the HNY DEC fan boys?"...but quit because it was too easy.

 

It stunk and the turnout was around 30. I do commend the Art and Jeremy, as well as the QDMA's effort, for coming out but it was everything I thought it would be. Boring, arrogant, empirical and of one directions.....and the Q&A period ended before the questions did.

 

Jeremy's presentation was well prepared but from the top of the mountain. Art's presentation might have well be Gary Alt's from a few years back minus the mention of ARs. It is kill every doe to save the understory/early successional forest growth.

 

Ill take a shot at the QDMA for not having their presence in the questions/stances presented. Seemed like their take (in my eyes) is not to upset the apple cart...but the QDMAs rating and deer report numbers sure have changed lately

 

BP's mention of hypocrisy was spot on.

We dont set costs or deal with moneys vs Everything we do has to be cost effective

Hunter satisfaction is a largest priority vs social effect

Out of state studies show vs If its not NY you cant reference it

Deer management is the biggest priority vs Bears, phone calls, etc

Randomly selected vs 7 regions of selected folks

Do whats needed on your ground vs Empirical directive (Doe harvest numbers)

Make a suggestion vs "that wont work"

Predator/Winters matter vs They don't

Macro management should matter most vs Our macro survey covers the majority take

We work with the QDMA vs Reality on hunter harvest

Hunter input desired vs MAR need 65-70% approval

We cannot reach everyone for their opinion electronically but we use electronic licensing system

We gather enough data on reported harvest tags to know 45% report but don't have enough info for citations on untagged deer

Time for a new plan vs An early ML season is the next step

Predetermined deer management plan vs realistic happenings (ie horrific winter index)

 

If I wasn't n vacation and aggravated as all hell with this topic perhaps I could be a bit more articulate. Cant help the irony of the DEC fan boys on here with their take of youre on board or against them. The majority of hunters disagree with the DEC but they tout open communication and consideration. What? They're going to increase voluntary restrictions but don't know how. What? Theyre open to making things better but will ask 30 guys in a room the ideas how. What? they want sportsmans takes but use limited clubs and surveys to determine those mass opinions. What? Nearly all that spoke mentioned drastically lower populations but this region has too many does in their eyes. What? Please submit your opinion if we select you to do so. What?

 

The DEC is caught in the cuffs of Albany...I agree. BUT for the near 50million in NY licenses sales they fund Cornell for hokie surveys, hold social meetings for deer human interaction concerns and this is the first darn meeting for deer hunter DEC interface I know of..... They are failing us. Surely someone will pose the "Whats your solution?" reply but its not my job; its theirs. They are failing us miserably and our funds are pizzed out the window and we are handcuffed more than they claim they are.

 

[beachpeaz]

Or 3, hire a deer czar to balance hunter input with biology.

 

Or 4, take a portion of the $47,000,000 in license sales and actually employ enough people to do a good job with BOTH 1 and 2.  I laugh at the comments made that the DEC does the best they can.  Pa-lease.  Lets not forget that HUNTERS are the revenue the DEC uses. NOT suburban mom with her Escalade worried about her goddamn fancy landscaping (as Art had people believing during his presentation).  Use the money given by hunters for hunting.

 

But, whatever, I'm under no illusion that would ever change, so I stick with #2:  Have the DEC stay the hell out of it.

 

[gjs4]

Or 3, hire a deer czar to balance hunter input with biology.

 

Agreed- there is not pinnacle.

 

I think a huge issues - regardless of the side youre on- is the DEC has too little staff and say on things that should be in their court. We actually don't have a deer czar or anyone at the helm. Jeremy started about bears and Arts talk was on deer impact socially not how they know things they attempt to make determinations on . 50 M in license sales and no one is in charge of just deer. Name one deer hunting specific project or area the DEC has contributed toward hunter satisfaction? They never have. Total BS. I even feel robbed by that presentation.

[gjs4]

Free Kool Aid at the DEC stand if youre thirsty.......

[beachpeaz]

Free Kool Aid at the DEC stand if youre thirsty.......

 

Straight from the Jeremy teet.  lol.

Edited March 25, 2016 by beachpeaz

[Culvercreek hunt club]

For the record there were 64 there. 

[Doc]

 

The DEC (and our esteemed biologists) are NOT paid to manage hunter expectations. 

And yet we have Jeremy Hurst stating that there is no deer management purpose served by ARs, and that it is really a socially inspired activity (paraphrased quotes since I don't remember the exact wording), and yet several more areas have been added to antler restriction sections. To me that sounds exactly like catering to hunter expectations. So while I kind of agree with your statement in principle, I am not sure that the DEC really does in practice.

 

Now, with that all said, I do have to say that as long as hunters are the only realistic tool in the DEC tool-chest for managing deer populations. And with that tool being currently diminished in number and enthusiasm, they do have to be somewhat concerned with hunter recruitment and maintenance. I would guess that it is not in their best interest to be excessively irritating hunters or adopting policies that drive more hunters out of the activity.

[Four Season Whitetail's]

And yet we have Jeremy Hurst stating that there is no deer management purpose served by ARs, and that it is really a socially inspired activity (paraphrased quotes since I don't remember the exact wording), and yet several more areas have been added to antler restriction sections. To me that sounds exactly like catering to hunter expectations. So while I kind of agree with your statement in principle, I am not sure that the DEC really does in practice.

 

Now, with that all said, I do have to say that as long as hunters are the only realistic tool in the DEC tool-chest for managing deer populations. And with that tool being currently diminished in number and enthusiasm, they do have to be somewhat concerned with hunter recruitment and maintenance. I would guess that it is not in their best interest to be excessively irritating hunters or adopting policies that drive more hunters out of the activity.

I dont really think that bothers them in the least. To many deer and they bring in the sharpshooters.  Pretty Simple.