Permit numbers down for 2010

[Doc]

Per an article in the latest issue of New York Outdoor News, DMP tags will be lowered by 5% this year, statewide.

However, just like the statewide deer harvest, that number means nothing to individual hunters. What you need to do is to look at the WMUs that you will be hunting. For example, in our WMU, 8N, the permits are less than 50% of what they were last year (from 23,600 last year to 11,300 this year) That's a long way from a 5% reduction. Also, there were 13 WMUs that didn't change at all. They had 0 permits last year and will issue 0 permits this year. Some WMUs even went up in permit numbers for this year. So the 5% number doesn't mean anything.

Here is their explanation that gives a little insight into the trial and error "statistical" methods that are used to set permit numbers:

"In many portions of the southern tier, after the population declines of 2003-2004, we reduced antlerless harvests (through a reduction inDMPs) for a couple of years and saw incremental deer population growth through 2006-07, Hurst said. We then began modestly ramping up antlerless harvests to keep deer populations from growing too fast and to avoid overshooting objective levels. Based on the 2008 and 2009 harvests, it appears that deer populations in many southern zone units began to level off prematurely, and easing up on antlerless harvest in these units is again necessary for 2010."

Did you follow all that? First we had blasted the herd down too far so then we tried this and then we tried that, now we will try this again because the other is overshooting the mark. How are those statistics working these days? ...... lol . That's what I like .... good old statistical forcasting. Actually, if you have been keeping your ear to the ground, these results follow the exact trends that the hunters have been describing each year.

Well, anyway take a look at those [last year/this year] comparisons and you will see how the DEC is reading the population changes in your particular WMU. It's kind of interesting. Maybe you'll agree, or maybe you won't :-\

Doc

[erussell]

Saw a doe today across the road from my house that had 3 fawns. So if the group of 15 doe I saw last yr across the road from my house all had atleast 1 fawn they just multiplied to about 31 deer. Should be a good yr to fill out the doe tags.

[SteveMcD]

I think it is a best guess game, based upon the previous and current years harvest record, road kills, DMAP's etc. SO the DEC can only issue permits based upon past date, so if you have a year with high amopunt of doe permits and then a one two punch of a bad winter, and the desired effect goe down the drain. There are way too many DMP's given out in many areas, particularly Region 3 where I live. But, I still believe it is the Farm Bureau and the Auto Insurance companies that influence the number of DMP's given out, and not necessarily the scientific data by itself.

[Doc]

Here's a related question that has always been rumbling around in my head:

When a WMU experiences a high harvest, does that information mean that permits should be bumped up because apparently the population must be high there?

OR 

Does it mean that permit numbers should be slashed because so many deer were taken out that the population must be getting low?

Anybody ever hear which spin the DEC puts on big harvest numbers in a WMU?

Doc

[Buckstopshere]

Even though it may seem counter-intuitive, the DEC reacts and implements the former scenario (bump the permit numbers because a high kill means a high population.)

[Doc]

It seems like either way you do it you run a risk of being exactly wrong. But I think if I were forced to choose, I would probably interpret it the way they do. And then I would cross my fingers a whole lot, which I believe is also part of the official management process .....  ;D

Doc

[Buckstopshere]

Man, you are getting more cynical.....but it's hard for us to tell the difference!  ;D

But at least the NYSDEC, to their credit does not seem to fall...hook, line, and sinker for the latest, greatest and most fashionable deer management craze like some other states have. The DEC may be frustratingly slow at times to implement new ideas, (from crossbows to ARs)  but maybe we should count our blessings.

[steve863]

But at least the NYSDEC, to their credit does not seem to fall...hook, line, and sinker for the latest, greatest and most fashionable deer management craze like some other states have. The DEC may be frustratingly slow at times to implement new ideas, (from crossbows to ARs)  but maybe we should count our blessings.

I whole heartedly agree with you here!! 

[Doc]

Cynical? ..... you bet. But in my more quiet moments, I have to give them credit just as you mentioned, for among other things, exercising caution in the face of fanatical armchair game managers who latch onto an idea like a bunch of pitbulls and whip themselves up into a rabid frenzy, thinking they have the next best idea since sliced bread.

By the way, I do come across as super critical of the DEC, but in reality, I do have to give them a lot of credit for doing one heck of a job given the resource limitations, and the political atmosphere that they have to function in. Also, I have said many times that inspite of my constant jabs at them, I have absolutely no idea of how to do their job better, and as much as we all think we know more than they do, the fact is that I don't think that any of us really do. Here and there we may have a more intimate knowledge of what's going on in our own little acreage of hunting area, but if any of us had the management responsibilities on anywhere near the scale that the DEC does, there is no doubt in my mind that every single one of us would prove to be a complete embarrassing flop at the job....... every one of us. 

On occasion I do get the feeling that they may bow just a bit to much to the political pressures that they are confronted with. I think I have seen a movement toward letting anti-deer forces have a lot more say in game management goals and I'm still trying to sort out the right or wrong aspects of that. There are a lot of fiscal-political realities that I am not real crazy about, and sometimes the DEC has to bear the brunt of those frustrations. But always, there is the time when I have to ask myself the question of whether I could do it any better, and if I am being honest, the answer comes back to be "NO".

However, I still enjoy the sport of "poke the DEC". I think we all do. With hunters, the favorite prey that follows just second to whitetails is the DEC. It's all great sport, and we all like to play. I'm no exception.

Doc

[steve863]

On occasion I do get the feeling that they may bow just a bit to much to the political pressures that they are confronted with. I think I have seen a movement toward letting anti-deer forces have a lot more say in game management goals and I'm still trying to sort out the right or wrong aspects of that.

I give them a LOT of credit for not giving in to anti-hunting forces in a liberal leaning state like NY.  Look at NJ with the bear seasons and all.  I think we have gained hunting opportunities in NY in recent years, not lost.  Yeah, private hunting land is not easy to find like it once was, but that has more to do with landowners than it does with the DEC.  In general I think they have done a pretty good job.

[woodsdweller]

all i can say is amen. i would like to see them remove all the dmps in 4r.

[wztirem]

Per an article in the latest issue of New York Outdoor News, DMP tags will be lowered by 5% this year, statewide.

However, just like the statewide deer harvest, that number means nothing to individual hunters. What you need to do is to look at the WMUs that you will be hunting. For example, in our WMU, 8N, the permits are less than 50% of what they were last year (from 23,600 last year to 11,300 this year) That's a long way from a 5% reduction. Also, there were 13 WMUs that didn't change at all. They had 0 permits last year and will issue 0 permits this year. Some WMUs even went up in permit numbers for this year. So the 5% number doesn't mean anything.

Here is their explanation that gives a little insight into the trial and error "statistical" methods that are used to set permit numbers:

"In many portions of the southern tier, after the population declines of 2003-2004, we reduced antlerless harvests (through a reduction inDMPs) for a couple of years and saw incremental deer population growth through 2006-07, Hurst said. We then began modestly ramping up antlerless harvests to keep deer populations from growing too fast and to avoid overshooting objective levels. Based on the 2008 and 2009 harvests, it appears that deer populations in many southern zone units began to level off prematurely, and easing up on antlerless harvest in these units is again necessary for 2010."

Did you follow all that? First we had blasted the herd down too far so then we tried this and then we tried that, now we will try this again because the other is overshooting the mark. How are those statistics working these days? ...... lol . That's what I like .... good old statistical forcasting. Actually, if you have been keeping your ear to the ground, these results follow the exact trends that the hunters have been describing each year.

Well, anyway take a look at those [last year/this year] comparisons and you will see how the DEC is reading the population changes in your particular WMU. It's kind of interesting. Maybe you'll agree, or maybe you won't :-\

Doc

It just seems to me that this is some form of "Weird Science"! Hurst's quote seems too simplistic. Perhaps he could have have cited some scientific data that supports his statement.