EAB Proposed

[dbHunterNY]

they might easily enough deduct the amount for the DMP if it's for any of the WMUs in question.  you pay $10 less but otherwise you pay and don't get it back.  that'd probably encourage more to get one.  even if they half heartedly intend to fill it in during purchase, the tag being in their pocket in some cases might encourage taking advantage of a possible opportunity in the field.  it think that'd be a smart move for DEC.  little things like that will add up to more doe taken in the end.  cost and easy of implementation just has to be justified given the results they expect from it.

[Doc]

I'm still confused as to why they started charging for antlerless permits in the first place. You have a process that needs hunter cooperation as a major, crucial, part of the management process, and you add in a new fee, coincidentally at a time when control of herds is starting to slip out of their hands. Now really, does that sound like a decision made by competent game managers? I don't want a refund in certain WMUs. Get rid of this stupid dis-incentive completely, statewide. It was a dumb counter-productive idea to start with. Undo it!

[growalot]

LT license...more ppl getting them..I don't see them wanting to get rid of that yearly cash flow..I'm one of the lucky ones that got mine when doe permits were included.

[Doc]

LT license...more ppl getting them..I don't see them wanting to get rid of that yearly cash flow..I'm one of the lucky ones that got mine when doe permits were included.

No, they don't want to, but didn't they back off on the cost of license fees increases just recently? You know, some times you gotta do what you gotta do. Especially if what you did in the past was stupid. It has to be undone. And even the DEC is capable of understanding that ..... sometimes.

[dbHunterNY]

I'm still confused as to why they started charging for antlerless permits in the first place. You have a process that needs hunter cooperation as a major, crucial, part of the management process, and you add in a new fee, coincidentally at a time when control of herds is starting to slip out of their hands. Now really, does that sound like a decision made by competent game managers? I don't want a refund in certain WMUs. Get rid of this stupid dis-incentive completely, statewide. It was a dumb counter-productive idea to start with. Undo it!

 

it's a state entity here in NY ...they spend money and want more.  i get where you're coming from but also there's a supply vs demand concept that applies to everything in the world.  here's my thoughts.  by far not all WMU's are severely over populated to the extent DEC is alluding to with certain ones.  in ones where tags where limited people with preference would get them despite not having absolute intentions of filling them.  they were free so why not.  meanwhile even some of the hunters the most legit drive to fill them get screwed out of the tag.  only so many to go around.  now with the $10 fee you're not going to pay for one unless the intent is truly there to fill it.  now think if I have access (maybe locked up to others) in an overpopulated/limited access WMU and another reasonably close that say I live in.  DMPs for both are free.  chances are I'm going prefer a tag for the more convenient WMU not the over populated one.  now make the overpopulated WMU tag free.  well people are more likely to get it.  it's free.  why not.  you now have more reason for others to hunt there.  if they do hunt there there's a chance they fill more than just the DMP tag.  the general hunting public isn't going to go out of their way to help the situation.  you've got to give incentives to guide the hunting public as a management tool.

[Doc]

it's a state entity here in NY ...they spend money and want more.  i get where you're coming from but also there's a supply vs demand concept that applies to everything in the world.  here's my thoughts.  by far not all WMU's are severely over populated to the extent DEC is alluding to with certain ones.  in ones where tags where limited people with preference would get them despite not having absolute intentions of filling them.  they were free so why not.  meanwhile even some of the hunters the most legit drive to fill them get screwed out of the tag.  only so many to go around.  now with the $10 fee you're not going to pay for one unless the intent is truly there to fill it.  now think if I have access (maybe locked up to others) in an overpopulated/limited access WMU and another reasonably close that say I live in.  DMPs for both are free.  chances are I'm going prefer a tag for the more convenient WMU not the over populated one.  now make the overpopulated WMU tag free.  well people are more likely to get it.  it's free.  why not.  you now have more reason for others to hunt there.  if they do hunt there there's a chance they fill more than just the DMP tag.  the general hunting public isn't going to go out of their way to help the situation.  you've got to give incentives to guide the hunting public as a management tool.

Well unfortunately, they are not using any financial incentives anywhere in NYS one way or another. I am convinced that if you want people to harvest does, you do not do it by starting to charge them for the opportunity. Even in the areas that are not in the super high deer density WMUs, they are still issuing permits in most areas And I am assuming that the intent is to have hunters use them to help manage the population. The idea even in these less populated areas still is to have tags in hunters pockets allowing doe harvest opportunities rather than sitting in a database as an unissued opportunity.

[gjs4]

There is somewhere around 50million in license sales annually that they have to work with

They have at least one big game biologist for each region and at least two underlings to that Sr. Biologist. Understaffed? Oh yeah. In effective ? Oh yeah.

Since everyone kicks the same dead horse I'm going for some equine soccer myself. Why not attempt to have some sorts of actual census. They base living doe numbers off of the harvest numbers to which they claim only 40% report. Ever notice the problem doe areas are also some of the more thickly settled, affluent and car laden (i90, etc)? Take it in and let it soak for a bit.

Everyone on here argues over what the DEC says but they're the same guys who don't see chit in the fall saying something is amiss.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Larry]

Gjs4 the only deer census that is needed is the one around your stand. Just count the number of deer you see. If you don’t see any then you are in a crappy spot if you see a lot of deer then you’re in a good spot.
To do a census the DEC would have to do an aerial survey at night in the winter using flir and do you know how much it would cost to do the whole state. Here’s one more thing Phade and some others will be posting the BLACK HELICOPTERS ARE OUT. A census done in winter still wouldn’t give you a true herd size you would want to do the census before the season. The reason the census would be done in the winter is the deer would stand out better with a cold back ground and no foliage on the trees.

[Doc]

Actually, infra-red studies would make some sense in areas where there are anomalies that need closer study for verification. Also, occasional spot checks via localized aerial surveys could be useful for verification of their regular statistical estimation methods. Nobody could question the application of statistics, if there was periodic spot verification done periodically. It could serve as a guard against statistical creep, or just plain erroneous application of the statistical processes.