# NY Releases 2005 Deer Harvest Results



## Tax Lawyer (Feb 5, 2003)

That is interesting.

I have been very excited about the mild winter. I think we may have a "perceived" improvement in deer numbers since there will be less winter kill. 

With regards to the antler pilot program, I think a 52% decrease shows a good effort in compliance. I would love to see that go statewide.

In your earlier thread, I was happy to see the stats about the rifles. It did not suprise me at all.

Most interesting - the extended ML season produced 2,000 extra harvested deer. If the DEC ever complains about a population problem, why not extend the seasons? I would love to be able to hunt (ML/Archery) until Jan. 1.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

Tax Lawyer said:


> That is interesting.
> 
> I have been very excited about the mild winter. I think we may have a "perceived" improvement in deer numbers since there will be less winter kill.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I think the 2006 deer season should be a very good one for NY hunters. I am seeing deer everywhere on my various jaunts to the WNY southern tier in my vain search for ice (actually, we have plenty of hard water now, just in time for walleye season and pike season to close  ) Hey, I guess its better late than never. 

I found it curious that this statement would be made in this press release, about the herds stabilizing. We had a pretty cold, harsh winter last year, yet the herds are healthy. As I mentioned in an email to Fred Neff, I am at a loss. If the herds were really stable, why reduce the DMPs so much? If the herds were not stable, then how could they have stabilized so quickly? I'm a little lost on this one.

Yes, the ML harvest is pretty amazing. Reflects the inline muzzie popularity, I believe, coupled with the extra weekend and some hunters not having success earlier, hitting the woods late to fill the freezer. I would love to see ML extended to Jan 1. I think the challenge with that one would be the snowmobilers, but this really would be a non issue if we could come together at the table.

The issues with the herds may be felt moreso out your way than out my way. I'll expedite posting the harvest tables. Give me 30 minutes and they'll be up... Still waiting on harvest by season. Should have that one soon.


----------



## thesource (May 19, 2005)

doctariAFC said:


> The DEC says the herds are healthy. Some hunters disagree. Somer hunter orgs are thumping hard for QDM, some are fighting the current proposals on the table.
> 
> Thoughts anyone?



When DEC says the herds are healthy, I read that too mean that we no longer have a statewide overpopulation crisis.

When hunters disagree, I think they believe we have swung the needle too far, and higher herd sizes could be carried.

I think the DEC's DMP cutback is in line with the latter train of thought.

Its good that the buck take stabilized, but it is still well below target in 2/3 of the WMU's across the state. 

I expect that the buck harvest numbers have hit bottom this year and the DMP will remain down in those areas for the next couple of years.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

*DEC Press Release - From S Litwhiler*

Below is the press release concerning the 2005 NYS Deer harvest:

DEC RELEASES STATISTICS FROM 2005-06 DEER HARVEST
Hunters Have The Safest Season On Record

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Commissioner Denise M. Sheehan today announced the results of the 2005-06 deer hunting seasons, including deer harvest, information on Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD), and hunter safety statistics. 

During the 2005 season, hunters harvested slightly more than 180,200 total deer, including 89,000 bucks and approximately 91,200 antlerless deer. The total deer harvest for 2005 represents a 14 % reduction from the 208,000 deer taken in 2004 and is the lowest total deer take since 1994. Declines in 2005 were expected following an intentional 35% reduction in Deer Management Permit (DMP) availability, an action intended to rebuild and stabilize the deer population in many areas of the State.

“While the 2005-06 big game season was one with many new changes and challenges, it continued to provide hunters throughout the State with quality hunting experiences,” Commissioner Sheehan said. “This year we enacted new regulations and legislation, like the first ever Saturday opener and expanding the use of rifles, and continued to address Chronic Wasting Disease. I would like to thank all the hunters both in the containment area and throughout the State for cooperating with our surveillance for CWD and for making 2005 the safest year on record for hunting in New York State.”

Deer takes in New York have declined in recent years as a result of specific management actions intended to reduce deer populations from the high levels of 2002 and 2003 and bring populations to manageable levels where deer were overabundant. These actions, combined with the impact of severe winter conditions in some areas resulted in deer population declines that were greater than expected. Through targeted management techniques in 2005, DEC biologists have been seeking to increase deer populations to achieve a better balance. However, deer populations comparable to 2002 levels cannot be maintained without long-term negative consequences such as damage to agriculture, forest regeneration, landscaping, or vehicle accidents. Results from the 2005 deer season indicate that current management efforts are working.

New York’s deer hunters took about 89,000 bucks in 2005, roughly the same as in 2004 and an indication that the overall deer population is stabilizing. Steuben County led the State with the highest deer take once again in 2005, with a total take of 8,577 deer, including 4,541 bucks. Allegany County was second with 7,335 deer (3,880 bucks), followed by Cattaraugus County with 7,321 deer (3,921 bucks). Erie County with 6,232 deer (2,563 bucks) and Ontario County with 6,053 deer (2,082 bucks) rounded out the top five counties in the State.

The statewide adult female take included almost 61,200 deer, down from about 80,200 adult females in 2004. This was an anticipated decline resulting from DEC’s reduction in the total number of DMPs available during the 2005 season. Just over 387,600 DMPs were issued in 2005, about 220,000 less than in 2004. DMPs are valid only for the taking of antlerless deer and serve as the cornerstone for statewide deer management efforts. 

Deer populations vary considerably throughout New York and approximately 20 % of the current Wildlife Management Units (WMU) have deer populations that are within 10 % of desired levels. About 15 % of the units have deer populations greater than desired while the remaining two thirds of the units have lower than desired deer populations. The goal of DEC’s deer management program is to maintain deer numbers at levels that meet local interests and habitat conditions, while also providing quality hunting opportunities for New York’s 540,000 deer hunters. 

“Reducing the number of adult female deer harvested, such as was accomplished in 2005, should allow for the population to rebuild toward desired levels where necessary,” said Commissioner Sheehan. The current winter has not yet had a significant impact on deer survival and small increases in deer populations can be expected for the 2006 season if mild conditions continue.

Although several significant regulatory changes regarding season structure and timing were implemented prior to the 2005 hunting season, their impact on deer harvest was not dramatic. The opening day of the Southern Zone Regular Deer Season was changed from a Monday to Saturday. This provided increased opportunity for young hunters who would normally have been in school for the opening day of the deer season and for those hunters who could not afford to take a day off work to hunt. The first two days of the season in 2005 accounted for 53% of the Regular Season buck take, only a slight increase over 2004 when about 49% of the Regular Season buck take occurred during the first two days of the season.

New portions of the Southern Zone were opened for deer hunting with centerfire rifles. While many hunters may have used rifles in these areas, there did not appear to be a widespread shift away from hunting with shotguns. No changes in deer take in these areas can be directly attributed to the opportunity to hunt with rifles.

The late archery and muzzleloading seasons were extended to nine days in length from the previous season lengths of 5 and 7 days respectively. Hunters appeared to take advantage of the increased season length, and the total deer take in the Southern Zone muzzleloading season increased from 6,618 deer in 2004 to 8,645 deer in 2005.

Also, 2005 marked the start of a pilot antler restriction program intended to expand the age structure of the buck population and better balance the sex ratio in WMUs 3C and 3J located primarily in Ulster County. The pilot antler restriction requires that bucks taken in these units have at least one antler with three points (or more) that are each at least one inch in length. Hunter compliance appears strong, and as expected, the buck take for these units dropped about 52%. As the program progresses, the total buck harvest should return to previous levels but with a greater percentage of 2½ year old and older bucks in the population. This pilot will serve as a learning experience for both the DEC and New York deer hunters. 

Since 1990, DEC has utilized local citizen task forces to establish deer population objectives for most WMUs. The task forces represent a broad range of public interests and consider concerns of farmers, foresters, conservationists, landowners and hunters. The desired deer population level of each WMU is expressed as a Buck Take Objective (BTO) and reflects the approximate buck take per square mile that would be taken when the deer population is close to the desired level. 

The attached tables provide details on New York’s 2005 deer harvest.


Chronic Wasting Disease

In the spring of 2005, an intensive statewide Chronic Wasting Disease program was initiated to sample wild white-tailed deer after CWD was detected in the wild in Oneida County. Much of the sampling efforts involved the collection of deer heads from hunter harvest that were taken to meat processors this past fall. A sampling system was developed to determine the number of deer needed from each county in order to detect CWD if it was present in the state. No additional cases of CWD have been detected in New York during the intensified surveillance efforts. Since April, 2005, over 8,000 samples have been collected throughout the state including 2,080 samples from the Oneida-Madison County CWD Containment Area with no new cases detected. Additional samples will be collected throughout the winter statewide from deer exhibiting clinical symptoms. Intensive statewide sampling is planned for next fall as well. 

CWD is a rare neurological disease that affects the brains of deer, elk, and moose causing the animals to become emaciated, lose body functions and eventually die. Following detection of CWD in two wild deer in Oneida County in April 2005, the Department established a mandatory deer check and testing procedure for all deer taken by hunters in the CWD Containment Area and significantly expanded statewide surveillance efforts. 

Throughout the country, research studies are being conducted about CWD, but there continues to be no evidence that CWD is transmissible to humans. As a precaution, DEC, State health officials and the World Health Organization (WHO) will continue to recommend that hunters not eat venison from unhealthy deer, including CWD positive deer.


Safest Hunting Year in History in New York 

Reports of hunting related shooting incidents received by DEC indicate that 2005 was the safest year in hunting in New York since records have been kept. During 2005 hunting seasons in New York, there were 29 hunting related shooting incidents. The previous record low was 32 incidents in 2003. There were four fatalities, three of which occurred during the big game season and one during spring turkey season.

This year's record low total of 29 compares to an average of 45 incidents per year over the previous 5 years, and to 137 incidents per year during the 1960s. 

Two new changes to the big game season were enacted last year, but did not adversely affect the safety of New York's hunters. The changes included moving the Southern Zone season opening day to a Saturday instead of the traditional Monday opener and expanding the use of rifles to new areas of the Southern Zone. No rifle injury was reporting in the new area, and only 15 of New York's 29 incidents occurred in big game hunting, making the big game season also the safest in history.

The decline in hunting related shooting incidents is not merely a reflection of the decline in hunter numbers. The hunting incident rate (incidents per 100,000 hunters) is declining much faster than the number of hunters. Hunter numbers have declined about 10% since the 1960s, while the rate of hunting related shooting incidents declined nearly 66% during the same period.


LONG-TERM HUNTING SAFETY RECORD, BY DECADE
Average Annual Number of Hunting Related Shooting Incidents.

Decade Incidents Rate*
1960s 137 19.0
1979s 102 13.9
1980s 85 10.9
1990s 66 9.2
2000+ 43 6.5

* The Rate is the number of hunting related shooting incidents per 100,000 hunters.

Thanks largely to the efforts of over 3,000 dedicated volunteer Sportsman Education instructors for over 50 years, New York has an extremely safety-conscious generation of hunters. DEC is always looking for experienced hunters to pass on the tradition of hunting safety and responsibility to the next generation. If you are interested in joining DEC in this rewarding volunteer activity, call 888-HUNT-ED2 for information on becoming an instructor, or visit www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/sportsed/index.html on the DEC website.	

Next will be the tables.....


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

*NY 2005 Harvest Tables*

God only knows how this will look, for those interested in getting a copy of this in the tabled format, please PM me with your email address and I will get iot to you as soon as I can.

NEW YORK STATE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

Proposed Buck Take Objectives and Actual Buck Take for the NYS 2005 Deer Season
(FIGURES IN BUCKS PER SQUARE MILE)

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT UNIT	PROPOSED BUCK TAKE OBJECTIVE	ACTUAL
BUCK TAKE WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT UNIT	PROPOSED BUCK TAKE OBJECTIVE	ACTUAL
BUCK TAKE 
1C	not set	0.7 6H	not set	1.0
3A 
 3.0	1.0 6J	not set	0.5
** 3C 
 2.7	0.9 6K 
 1.8	1.5
3F 	2.4	2.4 6N	not set	1.1
3G 
 4.1	2.6 6P 	1.3	1.4
3H 
 4.2	2.3 6R 
 0.7	1.3
** 3J 
 3.4	1.8 6S 
 2.5	1.8
3K 
 3.5	2.2 7A 
 1.8	1.4
3M 	3.3	3.4 7F 	1.5	1.5
3N 	2.7	2.6 7H 	2.8	2.9
3P 
 2.5	2.2 7J 	2.2	2.4
3R	not set	0.8 7M 
 3.5	2.4
3S	not set	1.4 7R 
 2.7	3.3
4A 
 1.9	1.3 7S 	3.0	2.8
4B 
 1.2	1.6 8A 
 1.5	2.3
4C 
 4.5	3.0 8C 
 0.5	0.7
4F 
 3.4	2.4 8F 
 1.9	2.4
4G 	2.3	2.1 8G 
 2.3	2.8
4H 
 3.4	2.2 8H 
 2.8	3.2
4J	not set	0.9 8J 
 2.1	2.4
4K 
 3.0	1.7 8M 
 3.9	2.9
4L 
 2.0	1.1 8N	not set	4.8
 4M 
 1.9	1.1 8P 
 4.2	3.0
4N 
 3.5	2.2 8R 	4.2	4.3
4O 
 3.3	1.7 8S 
 4.2	3.1
4P 
 2.7	1.6 8T 
 4.8	3.2
4R 
 5.1	1.5 8W 
 3.8	2.4
4S 
 3.3	1.8 8X	not set	3.8




WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT UNIT	PROPOSED BUCK TAKE OBJECTIVE	ACTUAL
BUCK TAKE WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT UNIT	PROPOSED BUCK TAKE OBJECTIVE	ACTUAL
BUCK TAKE 
4T 
 2.9	2.5 8Y 
 4.5	2.7
4U 
 4.1	1.5 9A 
 1.1	1.8
4W 
 4.0	1.6 9F 
 2.5	3.0
4X	not set	0.6 9G 	2.0	2.2
4Y 
 3.9	2.9 9H 
 4.0	3.4
4Z 
 4.7	2.9 9J 
 3.5	2.7
5A	not set	0.6 9K 
 4.0	2.7
5C	not set	0.3 9M 
 5.1	3.9
5F	not set	0.4 9N 
 3.5	3.0
5G	not set	1.0 9P 
 6.0	3.6
5H	not set	0.7 9R 
 4.1	2.8
5J	not set	1.2 9S 
 3.1	2.2
5K 
 2.8	1.5 9T 
 4.4	2.6
5N 
 3.5	2.3 9W 
 4.4	3.4
5P 
 3.4	1.7 9X 
 5.8	3.2
5R 	1.3	1.3 9Y 
 5.0	4.4
6A 	1.7	1.5 Totals: 
6C 	1.8	1.6 92 WMU’s Statewide
6F	not set	0.7 75 WMU’s with a Buck Take Objective
6G 
 1.7	2.5 17 WMU’s without a Buck Take Objective


 2005 buck take is 10% or more above the objective...........12 WMUs (16%)
 2005 buck take is within 10% of the objective....................14 WMUs (19%)
 2005 buck take is 10% or more below the objective............49 WMUs (65%)
No mark Buck take objective is not established or unit not open...17 WMUs
** A pilot antler restriction program was implemented in WMUs 3C and 3J beginning in 2005. Buck take for these units was expected to drop during the first year of the program.


The Buck Take Objective for a Wildlife Management Unit represents the desired number of antlered bucks harvested annually per square mile. Buck take objectives are based upon recommendations made by Citizen Task Forces in each WMU. On average, hunters take a consistent percentage of the adult bucks available each year. DEC biologists use buck takes as an index of the success in reaching and maintaining deer populations at the recommended levels within each WMU. 







2004 - 2005 PAGE 1
CALCULATED DEER TAKE BY WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT UNIT (WMU) 

N U M B E R O F D E E R BUCKS PER
2004 2005 SQUARE MILE
WMU BUCKS TOTAL BUCKS TOTAL 2004 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
1C 650 2,014 614 2,076 0.7 0.7
3A 486 661 617 767 0.8 1.0
3C ** 834 2,286 299 730 2.6 0.9
3F 895 2,500 781 1,942 2.7 2.4
3G 1,368 3,448 1,167 2,370 3.0 2.6
3H 1,084 1,818 1,297 1,696 2.0 2.3
3J ** 1,082 2,557 626 1,458 3.0 1.8
3K 922 1,624 833 992 2.4 2.2
3M 2,459 6,983 2,514 5,762 3.3 3.4
3N 626 1,504 578 1,327 2.8 2.6
3P 337 674 278 512 2.7 2.2
3R 110 184 165 308 0.5 0.8
3S 638 1,687 587 1,694 1.5 1.4
4A 483 878 568 897 1.1 1.3
4B 247 667 255 714 1.5 1.6
4C 512 1,003 490 947 3.1 3.0
4F 2,103 4,329 2,262 4,357 2.2 2.4
4G 725 1,532 789 1,534 2.0 2.1
4H 651 1,424 632 1,282 2.2 2.2
4J 191 547 134 481 1.3 0.9
4K 289 615 271 479 1.8 1.7
4L 255 423 197 349 1.4 1.1
4M 215 447 152 289 1.5 1.1
4N 411 1,096 462 725 2.0 2.2
4O 1,212 2,297 1,244 1,456 1.6 1.7
4P 591 1,175 569 661 1.6 1.6
4R 413 764 432 516 1.4 1.5
4S 478 805 398 716 2.2 1.8
4T 411 1,341 328 798 3.1 2.5
4U 306 660 194 443 2.4 1.5
4W 613 1,209 713 829 1.4 1.6
4X 22 24 46 51 0.3 0.6
4Y 662 1,970 520 1,349 3.8 2.9
4Z 860 2,069 718 1,576 3.4 2.9
5A 561 805 527 745 0.7 0.6
5C 318 400 314 378 0.3 0.3
5F 558 743 592 742 0.4 0.4
5G 1,149 1,615 1,091 1,508 1.0 1.0
5H 1,804 2,427 1,923 2,461 0.6 0.7
5J 1,080 1,592 984 1,495 1.4 1.2
5K 233 354 250 378 1.4 1.5
5N 1,053 1,661 1,042 1,730 2.4 2.3
5P 76 167 57 138 2.3 1.7
5R 424 851 487 858 1.1 1.3
6A 2,223 5,375 2,152 3,915 1.5 1.5
6C 1,463 2,891 1,382 2,784 1.7 1.6
6F 824 1,076 883 1,086 0.7 0.7
6G 2,500 6,274 2,509 5,696 2.5 2.5
6H 202 520 173 339 1.2 1.0
6J 702 1,149 906 1,311 0.4 0.5
6K 1,535 2,983 1,646 2,907 1.4 1.5
6N 408 534 522 653 0.8 1.1
6P 218 468 294 516 1.1 1.4
6R 582 1,108 707 1,623 1.1 1.3
6S 875 1,590 1,043 1,944 1.5 1.8




2004 - 2005 PAGE 2
CALCULATED DEER TAKE BY WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT UNIT (WMU) 

N U M B E R O F D E E R BUCKS PER
2004 2005 SQUARE MILE
WMU BUCKS TOTAL BUCKS TOTAL 2004 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
7A 658 1,186 780 1,022 1.2 1.4
7F 1,036 3,149 1,035 2,581 1.5 1.5
7H 983 2,560 1,033 3,272 2.8 2.9
7J 1,734 4,308 1,976 4,074 2.1 2.4
7M 3,142 4,597 3,939 5,000 1.9 2.4
7R 2,430 6,484 2,464 6,480 3.3 3.3
7S 2,177 5,438 2,039 4,379 2.9 2.8
8A 801 2,234 964 2,433 1.9 2.3
8C 101 304 93 360 0.7 0.7
8F 1,497 4,241 1,731 4,392 2.0  2.4
8G 1,889 5,545 1,928 5,637 2.8 2.8
8H 2,036 6,058 1,839 5,609 3.5 3.2
8J 1,467 3,753 1,702 4,177 2.1 2.4
8M 1,009 2,641 881 1,874 3.3 2.9
8N 1,806 5,866 1,515 5,210 5.7 4.8
8P 1,218 3,012 1,052 1,953 3.4 3.0
8R 1,179 4,489 1,174 3,271 4.4 4.3
8S 764 1,492 803 1,598 3.0 3.1
8T 1,175 3,082 1,249 2,338 3.1 3.2
8W 1,016 2,308 1,067 1,804 2.3 2.4
8X 1,354 3,551 1,506 2,790 3.4 3.8
8Y 1,005 2,074 944 1,635 2.8 2.7
9A 659 1,720 834 1,917 1.4 1.8
9F 751 2,022 832 2,353 2.7 3.0
9G 463 1,359 502 1,442 2.0 2.2
9H 3,378 8,224 3,260 7,158 3.5 3.4
9J 1,972 4,864 1,907 3,670 2.8 2.7
9K 1,289 3,234 1,221 2,514 2.9 2.7
9M 1,411 3,656 1,274 2,480 4.3 3.9
9N 595 1,616 631 1,160 2.9 3.0
9P 2,105 5,562 2,077 3,872 3.6 3.6
9R 588 1,662 599 1,017 2.7 2.8
9S 205 507 203 302 2.2 2.2
9T 700 1,707 646 1,040 2.8 2.6
9W 917 2,551 854 1,601 3.7 3.4
9X 677 1,614 697 1,070 3.1 3.2
9Y 617 1,938 550 1,439 4.9 4.4
----------------------------------------------------------------
TOT 88,733 208,406 89,015 180,214



**A pilot antler restriction program was implemented in WMUs 3C and 3J beginning in 2005. Buck take for these units was expected to drop during the first year of the program.


----------



## tackscall (Jul 26, 2004)

I'd like to know how many deer were taken the opening Saturday and Sunday vs a typical Monday opener, I think that might be the equalizer in buck take from 04 to 05 as opposed to the population stabilizing. I could be all wet.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

tackscall said:


> I'd like to know how many deer were taken the opening Saturday and Sunday vs a typical Monday opener, I think that might be the equalizer in buck take from 04 to 05 as opposed to the population stabilizing. I could be all wet.


Good question.....

According to John Major, DEC Sr Wildlife Biologist, 47% of deer harvest in 2004 happened on the first two days of the season (Mon and Tues). In 2005, comparitively, first two days of season accounted for 53% of total harvest. This is obviously up, but when we think about the second day of these season being Sunday, versus Tuesday, that would be anticipated. I'll have to double check my notes from the conference call with John & Denise to confirm...


----------



## thesource (May 19, 2005)

Doctari -

Buck harvest is still well below target in 2/3 of the state. Shouldn't we discuss that and the impact that potentially has on hunter numbers and, (near and dear to your heart) the economic impact?


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

thesource said:


> Doctari -
> 
> Buck harvest is still well below target in 2/3 of the state. Shouldn't we discuss that and the impact that potentially has on hunter numbers and, (near and dear to your heart) the economic impact?


Definitely! It does appear that much of the issues with this buck harvest does lie in Northern and Eastern NYS. WNY is fairly healthy in Buck takes, but this could be due primarily to access to lands and habitat transformation through forest succession (in Northern and Eastern NY.) 

Hunter satisfaction is a big driving force in hunter participation. If the DEC is correct, this could be the reason why we had a 5% decline in hunting licenses this year - not enough doe tags. But the declining access has a bigger role, IMO, and land leasing and associated costs are also at the forefront. 

My personal opinion is that NYS has issued way too many doe permits over the past few seasons. Now hunters EXPECT to get 5 tags a season, instead of one or two. How do we address this one equitably? 

Thoughts?


----------



## thesource (May 19, 2005)

doctariAFC said:


> Definitely! It does appear that much of the issues with this buck harvest does lie in Northern and Eastern NYS. WNY is fairly healthy in Buck takes, but this could be due primarily to access to lands and habitat transformation through forest succession (in Northern and Eastern NY.)


Define WNY. My region, 8, is well below the BTO in many areas. My favorite hunting grounds, 8Y, is almost half of what the buck take should be. The impact in the field is obvious.

The impact economically is starting to be felt as well. 2 friends of mine are meat cutters. They did 180 deer in 2002 and less than 50 in 2005. They are considering if it is worthwhile to continue their business.



doctariAFC said:


> My personal opinion is that NYS has issued way too many doe permits over the past few seasons. Now hunters EXPECT to get 5 tags a season, instead of one or two. How do we address this one equitably?
> Thoughts?


Actually, I remember prior to the season you saying that the reduction in permits was an overreaction, and that this would be a record year for harvest.

Be that as it may, it is what it is. The question is....now what? I know more than a few hunters who have said they will not buy a license next year, and a few more who have said they will hunt out of state instead.


----------



## Tax Lawyer (Feb 5, 2003)

One word - altruism.

People have to put away their selfish beliefs. 

I have no problem only taking two deer a season (although I do enjoy taking 5). I think we should DEFINITELY be a one (1) buck state. Meleagris1 will even go as far as say we should have a lottery.    That would be great for the herd but I would be in a full blow depression if I didn't get a tag (even though I have not shot a buck in NYS since '02).


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

Tax Lawyer said:


> One word - altruism.
> 
> People have to put away their selfish beliefs.
> 
> I have no problem only taking two deer a season (although I do enjoy taking 5). I think we should DEFINITELY be a one (1) buck state. Meleagris1 will even go as far as say we should have a lottery.    That would be great for the herd but I would be in a full blow depression if I didn't get a tag (even though I have not shot a buck in NYS since '02).


Yes, this is part of it for sure, but, several changes have been a major source of head scratching for me. When DECALS was lanuch, that accordian for the Super Sportsmen effectively gave the avid hunter 3 deer tags for the season. You could take two bucks and a doe, or two does and a buck (2 during early and extended, and one buck during regular season.) NYS has actually had a "two bucks per hunter" limit for a relatively long time. Archery hunters who successfully harvested a buck in early season could go to the license agent before Regular season opened, drop a ten-spot and get a second special tag for buck in regular season. I've done this twice. The issuance of 2 doe tags per hunter (taking the season limit to 5 deer per hunter) wasn't earth shattering, but the practice of signing over DMPs as a legal thing to do is a bad move. Yes, hunters trade tags. However, just from what I remember of basic wildlife management courses, hunter success rates normally run between 10% and 15% of hunters are successful (on average). Signing over tags to other hunters, more proficient hunters has had the impact of skewing the formula for success (if 5,000 does are desired to be culled, 50,000 permits are issued, but the successful hunters get tags from their friends, and success rate of filled tags is heavier than 10%). This can be illustrated this season perfectly. Reduced DMP tags by 35% - 40%, yet the antlerless harvest was down only 14%.

The biggest issue here is not really the DMP program. Its the DMAP and nuisance permit program. DEC reduced DMPs to help herd health. Super! Did they reduce DMAP and nuisance permits? Has anyone heard about that? The DEC does not know how many animals are harvested through nuisance and DMAP programs. I heard this one directly from the DEC, during the NYS Assembly Republican Task Force on Hunting & Fishing meeting in August 2005. Assemblyman Will Barclay, responding to my question surrounding crop damage and the Cornell Study pegging this cost at $25 MIL/ year, he turned to Russ Biss and asked, "What are the numbers coming in like for DMAP and the crop damage scenario?" Bear in mind this was August 2005, and Mr Biss answered "we do not have those numbers yet." I have yet to know those numbers. I have yet to hear anyone tell me they have heard about the harvest on nuisance and DMAP. What is up with that? DEC can get the season harvest totals out by March the following year, but 5 months after that is published, they still do not know how many DMAP deer were killed??? Something is rotten in Denmark, methinks. Still nothing from them, even after my conference call with the DEC on Jan 23!! The ease of these permits being given out gives farmers and large property owners the opportunity to lock up the lands and simply blast every deer in sight. I know a couple farmers who get these permits, and their orders to hunters (yes, these two let hunters on their lands) is if its brown, put it down. You pass a shot, you are not welcome back. If you do not want the deer, leave it where it lies.

Again, we have no plan in NYS. A bunch of little plans, but no overriding foundation, goal and direction to get there.


----------



## oldbhtrnewequip (Dec 30, 2005)

doctariAFC said:


> The issuance of 2 doe tags per hunter (taking the season limit to 5 deer per hunter) wasn't earth shattering, but the practice of signing over DMPs as a legal thing to do is a bad move. Yes, hunters trade tags. However, just from what I remember of basic wildlife management courses, hunter success rates normally run between 10% and 15% of hunters are successful (on average). Signing over tags to other hunters, more proficient hunters has had the impact of skewing the formula for success (if 5,000 does are desired to be culled, 50,000 permits are issued, but the successful hunters get tags from their friends, and success rate of filled tags is heavier than 10%). This can be illustrated this season perfectly. Reduced DMP tags by 35% - 40%, yet the antlerless harvest was down only 14%.


http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/wildlife/guide/consign.html

"The overall statewide success rate for using DMPs during the 2001 season dropped to a level of 24% from levels in excess of 75% when party sizes included several individuals. Allowing the transfer of DMPs will increase success rates and allow for additional harvest of antlerless deer."

DEC quoted non-transferrable success rates of 24% when no sharing was allowed and 75+% rates when DMPs were shared among a group. They also say they have many years of experience...which I believe because guys in my camp were using DMP's when I was hunting southern tier (east almond) as an out of state guest. Thanks ....many great hunts there!!

This gives the appearance that they know exactly what they are doing, and are fine tuning doe harvests. My guess is that they are trying, and they anticipate/promote dmp tag filling by legalized sharing. I'd suggest asking them to define on a yearly basis (if they don't do so already) 
-what percentage of dmp's they expect to be filled in each wmu,
-what percentage of dmp's they expect to be filled via consigment.
and then
-how many were filled
-how many were filled via consignment

http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/press/pressrel/2006/200622.html
"During the 2005 season,... 91,200 antlerless deer. ...The statewide adult female take included almost 61,200 deer, ... Just over 387,600 DMPs were issued in 2005...."

http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/press/pressrel/2005/200522.html
"During the 2004 season,... 120,000 antlerless deer.......more than 80,000 adult females...In 2004, just over 600,000 DMPs were issued, about 80,000 fewer than in previous seasons."

so 2/3 of antlerless taken are adult does for both years.
I'll also be assuming that you could consign dmps in both of the past 2 years.

91000/387600= 23.5% for 2005
120000/600000= 20% for 2004

Not a tremendous variation from 2004 to 2005, or 2001 for that matter.

I would question the accuracy of their statement, with my hindsight being 20/20 of course, 

"Allowing the transfer of DMPs will increase success rates and allow for additional harvest of antlerless deer.""

The antlerless harvest was down 25% (not 14%...91000/120000)
The DMP issues were down 35% (387600/600000)
This suggests either an increase in sharing or an increase in success rates for the initial permit holder....which is entirely possible with more non permit holders watching does walk by. I suspect its somewhere in the middle.

The proof of what you say (general hunter performance at 10-15%) could be proven out in the number of non-consigned filled dmp tags.

You may want to ask some questions. I can see how consignment allows them to be more accurate, because we're assuming we're working with a smaller group of more successful hunters. Good assumption??

Looks like they are hitting 20-25% every year. Maybe they're looking for 2% variance vs. 5% ?

but 75%??...come on

maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way or my math sucks.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

oldbhtrnewequip said:


> http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/wildlife/guide/consign.html
> 
> "The overall statewide success rate for using DMPs during the 2001 season dropped to a level of 24% from levels in excess of 75% when party sizes included several individuals. Allowing the transfer of DMPs will increase success rates and allow for additional harvest of antlerless deer."
> 
> ...


Excellent points. Nice job on digging out the info.

First - the success rates for DMP. When the doe permits were issued based on party permit requirements, you effectively had more than one hunter able to fill that tag, but only one tag could be filled. Group sizes certainly fluctuated during th course of this program, which replaced the "Doe Day" at the end of shotgun season. Party Permits allowed hunting parties to harvest a doe at any point during reg season, and, of course the fill rate would be very high, as you had several guns per one tag. Odds are good that each tag would get filled, but this does not mean hunter success was 75%. Hunter party success was really being measured. That one, therefore, gets tossed as a comparative, due to the conditions being completely different than we have today.

Inception of DECALS in 2002 also permitted the consignment of tags to another hunter. I believe the success rate prior to DECALS, when DMP were individual, non-consigned, and this success rate based on tags filled ran between 10% and 15%. Correction, probably cloer to 20%, as these permits are for use during firearms season (and the last week of archery leading to reg season). Part of this was the unwillingness of many hnters to shoot a doe. Against their "principles." This is a universal, and collective throughout all hunting seasons, aggregated. Harvest/ success rates are higher during regular season than they are during early archery and extended/ ML seasons. This is borne out through the buck harvest, which is total all seasons. Based on 595,000 licenses issued in 2005, and taking 89,000 bucks harvested, the success rate is just shy of 15%. This success rate for bucks was a little lighter last season, sue to more hunters in the woods.

Interesting numbers done on the antlerless take. Reduction of the anterless take was @ 28,000 animals. This was virtually all adult does.... The 24% you refer to as the decline covers antlerless, but against the total, which is the decline posted, the harvest was down 13.5% (rounded to 14%)

So, let's simply take these numbers at face value, and, if the success rates against DMP have remained very consistent, then what has caused the perception or reality (DEC does no physical deer herd surveys in the field, either aerial or on foot) of the deer herd numbers being down so sharply? If we achieved an all time high harvest just a few short years ago, which seems to have gone from high to 1/3 less the following year, what has caused this incredible drop in animals? I cannot reconcile a harsh winter against this. I cannot even reconcile over filling of DMP against this. Methinks the missing link to this whole chain may be found in...... DMAP?


----------



## thesource (May 19, 2005)

DMAP is too localized.

No, its the combination of high antlerless harvest and bad winters. More precisely, its the impact of a high antlerless harvest following a bad winter.

A classic example of not knowing what's happening until its too late.

By the time DEC reacted, we had 2 HUGE antlerless harvests on top of 2 consecutive bad winters. It will take years to recover.

We will pay for this ineptitude with lower harvests (both buck and total) for a few years, but it will bounce back.

We will also pay for it with reduced hunter numbers and the subsequently reduced hunter spending. Many hunters have told me that they won't buy a license next year or will hunt out of state next year. Neither are good for NY.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

thesource said:


> DMAP is too localized.
> 
> No, its the combination of high antlerless harvest and bad winters. More precisely, its the impact of a high antlerless harvest following a bad winter.
> 
> ...


Yet the DEC says the herds are now stabilized. DMAP is a very sore spot with me, due to lack of information concerning the harvest on these permits. Are these permits localized? Yes. However, as we all know, deer do not simply stay in one area, the move around. In fact, I heard that a few deer were radio tagged not too long ago near CNY. A few short weeks later all of the deer had traveled some pretty impressive distance, one winding up near Barcelona, NY. Deer travel to where the best food may be, especially when food supplies dwindle in their "more established" area. Best food sources are found on farms, for obvious reasons, and on the heels of the Cornell University study conducted a few years back, which pegged statewide crop damage by deer at $25 MILLION, the DEC responded with more DMAP, expanding the program to help reduce this $25 MIL. We still have heard nothing about the success of this program. I have been trying to find out some info, but foks that I talk to either tell me they don't know, or the numbers aren't in yet. Frustrating, to say the least.

Regarding the economic battle here, we have established a $25 MIL hit to farmers. With a decline of 5% in hunter numbers last season, this, at an average spend of $1365.00 annually per hunter, this could equalt of a loss in revenue of $42.6 MIL in one year, just in lost hunters.

Here is an idea that I have, does this make sense?

1 - Eliminate DMP permits altogether
2 - Current license purchasers of Big Game and Archery/ ML receive 3 permits per season (One Buck tag for reg season, two tags for archery and extended - one being deer of either sex and the other antlerless only)
3 - Institute the lottery selection for desired WMU, and this WMU numberis printed on the antlerless only tag.
4 - Two tags for archery and extended are valid only through those seasons, however, the antlerless only tag becomes the doe permit for regular season. Heck we can go so far as to allow both permits to be used during reg season for does only if need be.
5 - Eliminate the consignment of tags

I have not yet run any numbers against this, and this thought is certainly in its infancy. A number of hunters have inquired about using this approach. If we have 170,000 archers in NYS, that is 170,000 potential DMPs. The majority of archers also hunt regular season. With two DMPs, that would be 340,000 DMPs(+/-). This would also increase special license sales for archery/ ML.

However, we also must demand information concerning DMAP and nuisance permits. The lack of information is disturbing, to say the least. If this program was not also reduced last year, something is definitely rotten in Denmark.


----------



## Adkhunter (Jan 11, 2005)

I'm jumping on this very late but Do feel that it was an average year around here not only for me but for others that I have talked to.
I've seen numberes change quite a lot since I first started hunting. Any number the DEC throws up at me I usually take with a grain of salt. When the deer disappear where I am hunting it's a direct result of poaching. 
That is why the deer numbers in 6R are so bad. The more rural it is the easier it is to poach. The nice thing about this is that more and more houses are being built in these rural locations. There is plenty of feed throughout the region we just need the poaching to stop.
As for DMPs, I feel that they have a decent handle on things. How accurate do you want them to be with the predictions when hte rate of reporting is not great everywhere? A bad percentage of a bad percentage is just bad. You really can't expect miracles.
I know some areas of NY were "jipped" of DMPs but it will pay off in the long run.
We could always have populations of deer like we had in the late 70's.  
It's really tough for any one person to get a handle of what is going on in different parts of the state by statistics alone, especially if these stats are skewed from the getgo! IMO


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

Adkhunter said:


> I'm jumping on this very late but Do feel that it was an average year around here not only for me but for others that I have talked to.
> I've seen numberes change quite a lot since I first started hunting. Any number the DEC throws up at me I usually take with a grain of salt. When the deer disappear where I am hunting it's a direct result of poaching.
> That is why the deer numbers in 6R are so bad. The more rural it is the easier it is to poach. The nice thing about this is that more and more houses are being built in these rural locations. There is plenty of feed throughout the region we just need the poaching to stop.
> As for DMPs, I feel that they have a decent handle on things. How accurate do you want them to be with the predictions when hte rate of reporting is not great everywhere? A bad percentage of a bad percentage is just bad. You really can't expect miracles.
> ...


Well said! I know my salt shaker sometimes needs filling on a regular basis

How's the habitat in your region/ WMU?


----------



## Adkhunter (Jan 11, 2005)

The habitat is good. The I use the term good as compared to regions of the Adirondacks that I hunt as well. It really depends on where in 6R you are. Some regions of 6R are very poor as compared to other areas of the state. The once thriving area due to industry is falling apart. As a result people who once owned large tracts of land (farmers) have either logged (raped)the land to pay the taxes and sold the property afterwards or just logged it anyway to help pay for thier nursing homes. This logging practice has really hurt the mast crop. For example, I hunt a farm that is over 400 acres in size. There are only 10 acres of woods on that entire property. 
Another problem is that 6R is so long that the Conservation Counsel as well as the ...forgive me...the group that helps to determine recommended deer numbers (Citizen Task Force):wink: got it!!!...have set the population numbers way too low in my opinion. 6R should be divided in half once again. The habitat as well as human/deer populations on one end is totally different from the other as is household income. We could really have some great racked bucks in this area if the locals had other deer to shoot besides the one or two spikes or fork horns that they see the entire year. You really can't expect hunters to regulate what they shoot on their own. Venison = Food in many parts of this area. I'm live on the east end and even travel to the west end to hunt. Pathetic or what??
I would really like to see 6R included in the Antler Restrictions Program as well. This area needs a boost. We have trophy areas designated for trout fishing how about for whitetails as well?:lightbulb


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

Adkhunter said:


> The habitat is good. The I use the term good as compared to regions of the Adirondacks that I hunt as well. It really depends on where in 6R you are. Some regions of 6R are very poor as compared to other areas of the state. The once thriving area due to industry is falling apart. As a result people who once owned large tracts of land (farmers) have either logged (raped)the land to pay the taxes and sold the property afterwards or just logged it anyway to help pay for thier nursing homes. This logging practice has really hurt the mast crop. For example, I hunt a farm that is over 400 acres in size. There are only 10 acres of woods on that entire property.
> Another problem is that 6R is so long that the Conservation Counsel as well as the ...forgive me...the group that helps to determine recommended deer numbers (Citizen Task Force):wink: got it!!!...have set the population numbers way too low in my opinion. 6R should be divided in half once again. The habitat as well as human/deer populations on one end is totally different from the other as is household income. We could really have some great racked bucks in this area if the locals had other deer to shoot besides the one or two spikes or fork horns that they see the entire year. You really can't expect hunters to regulate what they shoot on their own. Venison = Food in many parts of this area. I'm live on the east end and even travel to the west end to hunt. Pathetic or what??
> I would really like to see 6R included in the Antler Restrictions Program as well. This area needs a boost. We have trophy areas designated for trout fishing how about for whitetails as well?:lightbulb


Interesting, thanks for the info. Through the discussions with hunters, it is bcoming more clear everyday that what we suffer from is an affliction I like to call lackaplanicus. We have no WIldlife Management Plans, comprehensive and complete with clearly defined goals and the steps to get there. We got a lot of little plans, but no overriding strategy to pull it all together and make our efforts effective.
The trophy whitetails idea is tough to do, as deer don't know trophy areas. Unlike the trout, which don't have too many options for leaving their creek, thus more readily controlled, deer move to where the food is. These travels could take them on a pretty large range. Then, of course, we have the property owners who also hunt, or provide their land for leasing opportunities, and want to make their property more attraactive to deer, so they plant food plots. Some of the motives behind these efforts is to pull deer off his neighbor's land and onto his. This practice is growing in NYS. We need a plan.


----------



## Adkhunter (Jan 11, 2005)

Dealing with a trophy area can be very similar. Some of the access to trophy areas for trout are bought easements by the state. 
A tax credit could be used for those areas within the "Trophy Areas" and those that plant within get an even larger credit. Those outside the areas get nothing.
There is really nothing to stop people from planting food plots to lure deer outside "archery only" areas either such as is done near Albany NY.
Of course this idea is vague but is very possible.

DMAPS need to be reduced to almost nil. In order to qualify for them the landowner should have to first prove that there is a problem as well as advertise that publically that there is a need for hunters to take the desired animals. This could put an end to the program in most areas. The landowner also should have no ability to decide who in particular is issued these permits for his or her land. The state should take this over. These permits should not be used for "the buddy system"
It could be done by computer very easily. The landowner however could decide the type of hunting impliment.
It would work something like this. Joe the landowner has a problem as he has in previous years and contacts the state. The state sends a biologist to the owner to look at the damage. Although this sould be done proactively not reactively.
The biologist issues (x) permits to the landowner. (Actually, he informs the landowner that (X) will be given out to people requesting them.) Since the state has a good idea of the reported takes and the percentages of the impliments involved that state now knows how many hunters to allow to hunt the property with any given hunting impliment. The landowner then decides the hunting impliments that he will allow. It could be just bowhunters or even just rifle hunters or both depending on when he wouyld like the deer taken. These permits should not be allowed to be used at any time of year.
Then hunters go to the DEC site and sign up for certain areas where they might like to qualify for a permit as such. They are drawn by lottery and then given the contact information of the landowner.
These ideas are truly in their crudest of forms but with work they are workable IMHO.
We have no plans because I firmly believe that it's not about that wildlife mgt. It's all about $$.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

Adkhunter said:


> Dealing with a trophy area can be very similar. Some of the access to trophy areas for trout are bought easements by the state.
> A tax credit could be used for those areas within the "Trophy Areas" and those that plant within get an even larger credit. Those outside the areas get nothing.
> There is really nothing to stop people from planting food plots to lure deer outside "archery only" areas either such as is done near Albany NY.
> Of course this idea is vague but is very possible.
> ...


Sounds like you have a solid foundation forming here. Yes, it is all about the Benjamins.... We certainly have much work to do.

Excellent ideas. Needs some refinement, but some good points are made. Well done.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

*Received a Very Interesting Comment Today*

From a gentleman in Region 7, CNY. The email is as follows, well, its actually a letter he is sending to DEC Commissioner Denise Sheehan:

Hon. Denise Sheehan, Commissioner
NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation
625 Broadway
Albany, NY 12233

Dear Commissioner Sheehan

We are writing this letter to inform you of an alarming decrease in licensed deer hunter success rate. Interaction with licensed hunters and outdoor enthusiasts provides information that substantiates the obvious depopulation of New York States deer herd.

Many knowledgeable individuals have made statements at meetings that regulatory changes and predators caused the decline in our deer population.

They stated the causes of the decline are unregulated nuisance permits, overpopulation of coyotes and excessive permit issuance in some areas.

Nuisance permits are issued without control. Deer are shot 24 hours a day 365 days a year, no limit. Deer are shot and often abandoned. Many of the carcasses are left to decay (total wanton waste). These deer could have fed many needy people.

Many are also concerned with illegal taking of deer (poaching). Most Licensed hunters feel a need for increased patrols by Conservation Officers are required. We have a large state with few officers. It is difficult for the officers to determine if a deer is shot by a poacher or taken on a nuisance permit. Night shooting of nuisance deer should not be permitted. 

We certainly would appreciate your review of our concerns and any action you feel is necessary to populate areas that have been impacted by over-harvesting of deer by licensed hunters and other taking of deer. We thank you for support and appreciate all you have done for the recreational sport of hunting.

Sincerely,


James Cleary Chairman Board of Directors
Nassau County Fish & Game Association
155 Amherst Rd.
Valley Stream, NY 11581

CC: Assemblyman Dinapoli
Senator Marcellino
Officers
Directors


----------



## thesource (May 19, 2005)

Maybe they'll stop the transferrable tags while they're at it...that seems to be when the trouble started.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

thesource said:


> Maybe they'll stop the transferrable tags while they're at it...that seems to be when the trouble started.


AMEN! We have much work to do.....


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

OK.

I have some more numbers, this time focusing on DMAP and other Deer Damage permits issued by NYS for 2005. These only pertain to Region 9. I also have the stats for calls received for deer damage complaints - All regions EXCEPT region 2, which go back from 1992 to 2005. It is interesting to note that during 1992, the total complaints received was 658, entire state. In 2005 the complaint calls were at 1,478, down about 100 from 2004, which, interestingly enough, in 2004, DEC recorded a record-tying 1,579 complaints of deer damage, tying the record set in 2001. Region 8 leads the way in deer damage complaints, followed by region 3 and region 9.

Here is the breakdown of DMAP and other permits, just in region 9
Region 9 DMAP Summary - 2005 


County	No. of Permits	No. of Deer Killed	Category of Permit Custom Deer	Municipal	Total Acreage in DMAP
Agricultural	Forest Regeneration 
Allegany	72	407	67	3	2 26,057
Cattaraugus	106	692	77	27*	4 52,355
Chautauqua	71	295	58	13*	1 18,300
Erie	45	298	43	2 13,792
Niagara	9	24	9 2,108
Wyoming	44	291	41	1	1	1	19,018
Totals	347	2,007	295	45*	8	1	131,630


*	Note:	Two DMAP permits in Cattaraugus County and one in Chautauqua County 
issued for both agricultural and forest regeneration damage 

Total number of Carcass Tags issued 4,860 

Deer damagae permits

Across all of Region 9
Looks like a total of 152 deer damage permits were issued
Deer killed on this prgram were totaled at another 923 deer, however, 634 of these animals were taken with Urban Deer Management permits (bait & shoot)

Now, let's do some math. 2,007 deer were killed with DMAP and another 923 on the deer damage permits, taking the total, in Region 9 alone to 2,930 total deer. Region 9 total harvest was calculated at 33,061 deer for 2005. This was a decline of 21.4%

Actual harvest including DMAP and deer damage permits comes in at 35,991. At 2,930 animals, the DMAP and deer management permits account for just over 8.14%.

Thought you'd like to know. With region 8 registering the most complaints about deer damage by wide margin, it would be interesting to know how many permits were issued and how many animals were calculated as being harvested on these programs....


----------



## alwayslookin (May 28, 2003)

*DEC Reacts ....it does not anticipate*

NYS DEC does not have a crystal ball.....they tend to try to adjust today to make up for yesterday.
My overall opinion is that until they limit buck harvest (1 per hunter), they will always play the doe game to no avail.
More bucks in the woods means a higher percentage of EARLY bred does. Which means higher productivity from the does that are in your herd.
Tons of does and no bucks means......low fawn production.
If the doe herd is close to where they feel it should be, give opportunity to harvest them. reduce the buck harvest, for higher reproductive efficiency, keep the doe herd in check so the habitat will support the deer well, so you will have less chance a high harvest followed by high winter mortality or poor feed years will compound the problem.
The facts bear out that most herds with unchecked buck harvest will boom and bust on a regional basis.
I can go on and on.....................
Basically Northeastern herds suffer AS MUCH from their buck kill, as they do the doe kill.
I will now go put on my body armor.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

alwayslookin said:


> NYS DEC does not have a crystal ball.....they tend to try to adjust today to make up for yesterday.
> My overall opinion is that until they limit buck harvest (1 per hunter), they will always play the doe game to no avail.
> More bucks in the woods means a higher percentage of EARLY bred does. Which means higher productivity from the does that are in your herd.
> Tons of does and no bucks means......low fawn production.
> ...


No need for the body armor. You have touched upon some very good points, except the one buck per hunter idea... with a twist.
Pre-DECALS days had one buck per hunter who purchased only the Big Game license or Sportsmen's License. Of course, with Sportsmen, you got to apply for a doe tag for free, rather than $10. If you had an archery hunting stamp, you had the opportunity to get a second tag if you harvested a deer during early archery season, regardless of whether this deer was antlered or not. The replacement permit could be purchased for $10.00, provided the purchase was made prior to opening day of Regular Season.

I believe that system should be returned. Give antlerless only permits to the archers and black powder stamp purchasers and scrap the deer of either sex tag. You can use your regular season tag for a buck, and if you will it, buy another tag before regular season. WOuld that work? The reason why I ask is that it seemed to work out well prior to DECALS.


----------



## alwayslookin (May 28, 2003)

*I'm Game*

Except I want the second to be a limited tag......with antler restrictions.......otherwise for 10 bucks...ya kinda defeat the purpose of saving the bucks.
By the way, I am not against a guy who hunts a few days a year killing a buck I (now) won't shoot.....different strokes....and I cut my teeth on small bucks and does and it was a BLAST.
I would also like to see a 9 day gun season, from the Sat before Thanksgiving to the Sun after. I think this would give kids and working guys and gals the chance to have 2 weekends and a holiday at the very least. I know I got sick of fighting for vacation during season and this would get those guys a break.
That one would need body armor if this weren't AT!!!!!!
Let's keep this discussion going......it's cool.
Are you going to the CNY meetings????


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

alwayslookin said:


> Except I want the second to be a limited tag......with antler restrictions.......otherwise for 10 bucks...ya kinda defeat the purpose of saving the bucks.
> By the way, I am not against a guy who hunts a few days a year killing a buck I (now) won't shoot.....different strokes....and I cut my teeth on small bucks and does and it was a BLAST.
> I would also like to see a 9 day gun season, from the Sat before Thanksgiving to the Sun after. I think this would give kids and working guys and gals the chance to have 2 weekends and a holiday at the very least. I know I got sick of fighting for vacation during season and this would get those guys a break.
> That one would need body armor if this weren't AT!!!!!!
> ...


Now that is a great idea!!! First buck, 3" antlers, like always. Second tag, AR enforced. I like it, like it alot. That makes too much sense.

I now understand the body armor statement now. Current firearms season encompasses 4 weekends. I do not believe shortening any season would be an appealing proposal... Heck, hunters were shouting "Get a Rope!" and "STring 'em up!" at the Feb 4, 2005 Deer Meetings in Blasdell, and these comments were aimed at the DEC. Imagine what the cat calls would be like if they went to recude firerms to 9 days. Besides, I do not understand the rationale behind this. First week of the season is the Holiday week. Opening day is now on a Saturday. If fighting for vacation time is the issue, I would think we would wish to lengthen the season, not shorten it. A shorter season does nothing to assuage the vacation time conflict. If anything, it would serve to exacerbate the problem. 

I'll be heading to the CNY Meeting of the Republican Task Force meeting in Altmeter, but I do not think I'll be able to make it to the meetings being held earlier this month. Too many conflicts....


----------



## thesource (May 19, 2005)

That really is a good idea.

First tag, any buck. Second tag Antler Restictions, and only aquirable upon reporting the first buck.

I like it!:darkbeer:


----------



## alwayslookin (May 28, 2003)

*Mandatory reporting*

I am as guilty of NOT doing it before decals....but it would giv eus a LOT more accurate data.
This is GOOD.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

This idea is great, and I will be bringing this up to the Federations at our next meeting later this month. 

As an FYI, Erie County (my Fed), Allegany and Cattaraugus Federations have come out AGAINST the current QDM proposals made by CNY Whitetails, all aspects of it. 

However, I do believe this approach with the second buck tag will be received very favorably. Great Idea!

I will also bring this up at the next Hunting & Fishing task force meeting, this April 20 in Altmeter.


----------



## Adkhunter (Jan 11, 2005)

In areas like I live that idea would be terrible. You still would end up with yearlings being the predonimantly shot deer. That is what we have now. Forget even finding a second buck in some area to shoot let alone one with the correct antler requirements.

Why not put AR on the first and then not limit the second but to say 3" or better on one side?
Is hunting about scoring or about the herd and it's developmental health?
To me it's about helping to create a unified single rut if possible so I would say the development of a unified body of aminals.
Maybe each area of the state needs to be managed individually. I bet that would be fun!!! NOT!! I'm sure the state would love that too!
I guess we would have to employ more wildlife biologists.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

Adkhunter said:


> In areas like I live that idea would be terrible. You still would end up with yearlings being the predonimantly shot deer. That is what we have now. Forget even finding a second buck in some area to shoot let alone one with the correct antler requirements.
> 
> Why not put AR on the first and then not limit the second but to say 3" or better on one side?
> Is hunting about scoring or about the herd and it's developmental health?
> ...


The second buck permit would only apply to those who have archery licenses and harvest a buck during archery season, similar to how the buck tag process worked pre-DECALS. If you harvest a buck with a firearm during regular season, you have filled your buck tag, and do not have the oportunity to harvest another buck, even in late ML season.


----------



## alwayslookin (May 28, 2003)

*Clarification*

Doc is more in line with my thinking.....One either sex Archery Tag, One Regular Season Tag, the second tag is AR, printed out like your license upon checking the deer @ an approved location, No AR if purchased alone, third tag is Bow/Muzzle Antlerless.....only on Sportsman. 2 dollar fee for the check in, second tag costs what a Big Game License costs, 10 dollars if you purchase it as an antlerless license.
The big problem with mandatory check in during gun season is staffing....given our meager archery harvest, I think this is doable, especially if the licensing agent gets a buck or two per deer. They may be able to tie it in with decals, somehow.
2 year loss of license for an unreported first buck.
10 dollar coupon for next years license if you only purchase 1 buck tag and do not purchase the antlerless optional second (10 buck) tag.
AR is tough because without a check by a warden or other official, who decides whether the buck is legal.

Doc , do you have stats on how many hunters killed 2 bucks last yr.?????

ADK I am with you in that they will have to manage for a strict 1 buck per year in some areas of high harvest or lower population.
I would support a one buck per calendar yr., as I allready do this, but better to get something than nothing. Most will defeat the 1 buck thing.....Lord knows why....we had it for years.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

alwayslookin said:


> Doc is more in line with my thinking.....One either sex Archery Tag, One Regular Season Tag, the second tag is AR, printed out like your license upon checking the deer @ an approved location, No AR if purchased alone, third tag is Bow/Muzzle Antlerless.....only on Sportsman. 2 dollar fee for the check in, second tag costs what a Big Game License costs, 10 dollars if you purchase it as an antlerless license.
> The big problem with mandatory check in during gun season is staffing....given our meager archery harvest, I think this is doable, especially if the licensing agent gets a buck or two per deer. They may be able to tie it in with decals, somehow.
> 2 year loss of license for an unreported first buck.
> 10 dollar coupon for next years license if you only purchase 1 buck tag and do not purchase the antlerless optional second (10 buck) tag.
> ...


I do not have the stats on how many hunters harvested more than one buck. One of the challenges we will have, regardless of the system we use, is that we will still have plenty of hunters filling other hunter's tags. Heck, I know more than a few guys who get their wives/ girlfriends to go through hunter's training, and then get the license so HE can fill their tags. However, I do believe the two buck tags currently issued to Big Game and Archery/ ML tag holders encourages a multiple buck harvest, which may also create the condition that the first tag, used in early archery, could be a brown its down harvest, because the hunter still has his Buck Tag to fill, even during archery! 

The other issue is to address the transfer of DMPs to other hunters, at will. Its one thing if a hunter in your party harvests a doe and needs the tag. But some folks get the doe permits, and they know someone in who hunts a particular WMU, and the tag is sold to them, before an animal is harvested. Truly a violation of the spirit of the transfer law, but, as license prices increase, some believe they will make up this added cost through selling tags. This is not a widespread issue, in my opinion, and I believe poaching is a bigger problem, plus some runaway DMAP and Deer Damage Permit programs only compounds our challenges.

This idea, however, is a GREAT start.

In regards to Northern Zone Hunting, if a hunter did not use his or her buck tag during the prior year's regular or ML season, they do have a few days (the last days of September) to fill this tag, due to the earlier start than the Southern Zone. I kinda thought (or was led to believe) that the Southern Zone season changes affected in 2005 would go towards standardizing the seasons somewhat. Silly me, right? That, too, is a condition unique to NZ, which I have no solid answers for at this time. I shall defer to NZ Hunters on that issue.

I will endeavor to compile something cogent and put it up here for everyone to read and give some feedback before I head to that task force meeting, and also present to Erie County Federation.

We are getting much closer to finding a solid solution. Thank you everyone! :yo:


----------



## Adkhunter (Jan 11, 2005)

I still feel that it would not be of great benefit to the herd in NY.
This would essentually mean that only archers would be allowed to harvest a second buck and it must be of correct antler size. That's crap and I bet most archers would say the same. Heck, I drive 90 miles to hunt the Pinebush to get another crack at a buck every year with my bow. Like I'm going to drive 90 miles when I could sit in a tree here and see a non shooter.
The problem here that if a hunter harvested a buck during the early or regular season and also hunted with his bow he would have to follow an AR policy but would be the only hunter that would.
This is not going to fly by 1/3 of the hunters here in NY that bowhunt!

Why not make it your first buck AR and the only ones who can harvest another are archers and can harvest any buck after? It might encourage more to take up the sport of hunting with stick and string. It's then becomes a ticket to 2 buck tags unless this is all about screwing the archer in areas of very low buck populations and not helping the herd on a whole? That is what it looks like from the outside! I just had three non-hunters read it and they were speechless and they they started asking questions and picking the idea apart. Like I needed more ammo myself!  

We have enough problems to deal with that we don't need to revamp the entire system. Getting nimbys to go along with any form of AR is hard enough!
One simple change to enact AR statewide is the way to help the herd out at least in the central area of Ny and the Adirondacks.

Have any of you hunted the Dacks and seen waht happens to late born fawns? They become a second wave of bear food in later June! The Dacks needs AR desperately to help unify the rut to a one rut season. Yeah, yeah, there are some areas of the dacks where deer have actually moved out to yarding areas before the rut. That is great in those areas because it congregates the does in one area for bucks but in the southern and very northern areas of the Dacks that doesn't happen and the herd is in bad shape due to 2 and sometimes three ruts. I saw a newborn fawn last year in the beginning of August as I do almost every year. That fawn is dead by the third snowfall if not before. It's also something that we can help to reduce or even prevent with the aid of AR.

As far as getting the stats on how many harvested 2 bucks last year. Good luck! Getting accurate reportings of even one is hard enough on a large scale.
The next thing is that all areas of NY are not equal. Guys in my area would love to hunt out in any western or south western counties. There are some areas near me that have < 10% of the deer per square mile that are out west.
Look at Ny as a whole and not from your backyard. Don't get me wrong, this is not to be a slam but if you haven't hunted in the east, south or north on public land it's worth it. You will quickly learn that all areas here in NY are not even close to equal. Some of the problems that western counties face are created by your next door neighbors who refuse to let more hunters, other than theri buddies, on thier land. The same can be said for areas in Orange and Rockland county areas. Finding land to hunt is hard yet everyone wants the state to do something about it.

Fixing the problem that the state has with it's archers not harvesting enough deer during the early season is easy to fix if the state is serious. All that needs to de done is to allow the archery tag to be used at any time of the hunting season. I know some guys would be against it claiming it to be unfair but then ML hunters can harvest a deer with their regualr season tag and then use their ML tag during the late season. I feel it should be this way, you got a tag? You can use it anytime once the season opens for the start of usage of that hunting impliment. 
If you area against this how about only allowing does to be shot during the early archery season and then once an archer harvests one and brings it to a check station the archer gets a buck tag to be used at anytime? That would help to encourage more does to be taken early, that would help the rut and also as well as eleviate how many DPMs need to nbe dished out the following year.
Sorry about the rant but everything does not need to be revamped but a little tweeking is in order as we all agree.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

Adkhunter said:


> I still feel that it would not be of great benefit to the herd in NY.
> This would essentually mean that only archers would be allowed to harvest a second buck and it must be of correct antler size. That's crap and I bet most archers would say the same. Heck, I drive 90 miles to hunt the Pinebush to get another crack at a buck every year with my bow. Like I'm going to drive 90 miles when I could sit in a tree here and see a non shooter.
> The problem here that if a hunter harvested a buck during the early or regular season and also hunted with his bow he would have to follow an AR policy but would be the only hunter that would.
> This is not going to fly by 1/3 of the hunters here in NY that bowhunt!
> ...


I don't think we're talking about a revamp, rather a return to how the buck tags were handled pre-DECALS. You could only use the buck tag during archery season, but it was/ is good for a deer of either sex, during archery season only. You did not get permits for anterless to be harvested early and late if you bought an archery/ ML tag. You got one tag and that was it. DMPs were valid during the last week of early archery and through reg season only in the specific WMU. 

If an archer harvested a deer (buck or doe) during early archery, they could buy a second permit, prior to opening day of Reg season, for an additional $10.00. You had to bring the completed tag into the licensing agent before the second special buck tag would be issued.

What I believe many here are saying is that if we are to more effectively manage the deer herds, without driving hunters from the sport, we should return to this practice. If you want to harvest two bucks, fine, buy an archery stamp, take up bowhunting, and harvest your early season deer, no AR, but the second tag, which is valid ONLY in Regular season, must meet the AR established. 

Or, do we take each Zone and tell hunters, ok, Northern Zone hunters, Regular Season bucks must comply with AR? If a hunter only gets one buck tag, and they are the one-day warrior type, they do not get a second permit, even if they by the ML stamp. The second buck would apply only if you harvest a deer during early archery, just like the "good old days".

You are correct, each area/ region of NYS has differing habitats and are at varying degrees of succession. This is not a deer herd issue, rather this is more a land management, or lack thereof scenario. This is also symptomaic of the absence of an overall comprehensive wildlife management plan, comprehensive of all game species, coupled with habitat improvement/ maintenance planning and execution.

We do have to address the tagging scenario and how many permits a hunter gets, DMPs not withstanding. We also must address DMAP and Deer Damage Permits. However, based on all the information I have combed through thus far, AR/ QDM is a fallacy. Works great on paper, but in the end, this will only increase and indeed encourage poaching and reduced access to lands already dwindling. 

Methinks we need a serious hunter summit on this issue.


----------



## Adkhunter (Jan 11, 2005)

I'm familiar with the old system as well as how our state used to be with our old "party permits". It blew!!! Those "good ole days" were not so good here in central NY. 5 guys to a single doe permit. 

As far as an archer using his tag and buying anthoer. The state would love that system again. It's more $ in their pocket. I think that blows as well as long as they are going to issue the second for free. They do that in some areas already.
The Pinebush in Albany for example. Want 5 deer? Just keep killing them and bringing them to a check station! You'll keep getting tags.
AR is not driving hunters from the sport and there is no evidence besides what was quoted by the state as a decrease of hunter numbers and they lie as well. Check out these links from the DECs web site.
It goes to show that they tell you what you want to hear in person but tell the truth on the site, or do they?

Deer populations vary considerably throughout New York, and approximately one-quarter of the current WMUs have deer populations that are within 10 percent of desired levels. About one-third of the units have populations above desired levels, and the remainder of the areas, about 40 percent, have lower than desired populations. The goal of DEC's deer management program is to maintain deer numbers at levels that meet local interests and habitat conditions, while also providing quality hunting opportunities for New York's 650,000 deer hunters who go afield each fall in New York in pursuit of the white-tailed deer

http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/press/pressrel/2004/200418.html


DMPs are valid only for the taking of antlerless deer and serve as the cornerstone for statewide deer management efforts. Deer populations vary considerably throughout New York. Approximately one quarter of the current Wildlife Management Units (WMU) have deer populations that are within 10 percent of desired levels. Almost two-thirds of the units have deer populations lower than desired and the remaining units have higher than desired deer populations. The goal of DEC's deer management program is to maintain deer numbers at levels that meet local interests and habitat conditions, while also providing quality hunting opportunities for New York's 620,000 deer hunters.

http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/press/pressrel/2005/200522.html



Deer populations vary considerably throughout New York and approximately 20 % of the current Wildlife Management Units (WMU) have deer populations that are within 10 % of desired levels. About 15 % of the units have deer populations greater than desired while the remaining two thirds of the units have lower than desired deer populations. The goal of DEC's deer management program is to maintain deer numbers at levels that meet local interests and habitat conditions, while also providing quality hunting opportunities for New York's 540,000 deer hunters.

http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/press/pressrel/2006/200622.html


So which one is a lie or was it quoted in Outdoor News incorrectly just to appease their audience? :zip: 

You are right that there area land management issues everyewhere but it then becomes a herd issue as well. We may not be able to help the land management issue without drastic changes in the NY Constitution, Article 14, but we can change our management of our herd easily.

Addressing the tag situation with the usage of DMPs and the transfer of them is not an issue here in central NY on a whole yet is is a problem to some in other locations. I wonder if that is because of an actual problem or is more of a personal problem with certain hunters having a "better supply"? Just because doe numbers have dropped in southern area does not mean that the transferral program should eb discontinued. It means that the state needs not issue so many DMPs and screwed up issuing too many of them within the past few years. This goes to show that the state is not up to snuff. Why end the program because of a poor choice to issue too many permits?
There are areas where does are still running rampant and in huge excess that should never happen. We need to shoot does yet try to maintain a one rut season with a aged buck population. No wonder we have too many ruts in NY. There aren't enough mature bucks to service them. 
I shot a 1 1/2 y/o buck this year that was a late fawn in 2004. I watched him all 2004 and culled the little guy very late in the 2005 season. What was he doing? Trying to bread a doe. Why? He was the doninant buck for that area.
Disgusting! It's pretty sad when there aren't even 2 y/o around and a button buck has to do the breeding during the second rut. Nothing like stressing your small bucks out all season long just to get them ready for a hard winter.
We got lucky this year with little snow. 2 y/o old deer are much hardier and suffer less health problems than do young deer when the winters are hard.
The stats are our there on winter mortality and how age structure of deer fit in. I'd love to see and arguement against those stats but I'm sure anyone against AR will look like nimby trying.
Pull the chain and the light will come on but you have to be willing to grab ahold of the chain first.
AR, so to speak, is a tool that nature has used in the past to age a herd. That data is out there as well. A winter in the 1960's in NY and the results of it show how it happened. Maybe we need to look back in time 40 yrs and use this as a management lesson. How soon we forget or is it how we don't want to remember?


----------



## alwayslookin (May 28, 2003)

*Adk*

I grew up in southern Herkimer county, and killed my first deer with a bow in the Dacks....Forestport....first deer with a gun in Arietta.....and many since ,all over. I understand the population demographics up there too. You are from where I grew up, and I understand the difference in where I live now and where you hunt.
As stated before....I am and have been voluntarily for 5 years, shooting one AR buck a year. That is my choice, and it is not for everyone, the ONLY solution to buck overharvest is to reduce the take.....the only way to effectively do this is to quota hunt. Quotas will never fly in the east. Antler restrictions work well for one year and then create a situation where most of your buck take is 2 year olds.
While this leaves more bucks in the woods, it leaves more young, inexperienced,inneffective (comparably) breeders. This is another detriment to breeding efficiency.....but better than overharvest.
A complete AR harvest is difficult to enforce, isolates hunters, decreases participation, and is geographically not uniform in effect.

The only thing that will effectively change herd demographics will be a series of small changes that WILL affect the way we hunt, mostly it will take a BIG change in hunter attitude. The North Country is vasty different in habitat than the Southern Tier.....which is extremely varied.....and has it's own issues.

The proposal would not only have archers practicing AR for their second deer. Archers who take precious few bucks compared to gun hunters, by the way, and fewer yet if they still have gun season and want to pass that small buck and wait, along with saving some cash. Bucks saved. That same bow hunter takes the small buck and now HAS to hunt a n AR buck, may not see an AR buck. Bucks saved.

I think all too often, we, the ones debating this, forget that to the avg hunter, the guy who kills a buck every 5 or 6 years, is no threat to any plan we impose.....he is not killing the small buck on a regular basis. It is US, the 2 or 3 season hunters, who pray for AR and 1 buck, that consistently affect the buck population more than most avg hunters.....we all want more bucks because we hunt bucks. Sad fact is we have a choice, and we need to exercise some restraint....not shoot 2 bucks because we can.

ADK I am not pointing fingers at you, I don't believe we have ever met. I applaud your efforts to change things, and the fervor with which you debate...I really do. But now is the time to compromise, and start down a new road. Give your input, it really helps, because as you know and have proven, we need to do what is right for the deer and do what is right for hunting.
I hope we can share a camp sometime....and that is an invite. My place or yours.:cocktail:


----------



## alwayslookin (May 28, 2003)

*Adk*

I also just read that you shot a young buck.....how does this fit in with ANYTHING you are trying to do.
The concept of a DOMINANT buck is the only breeder is absolutely false. A doe will stand when she is ready, for the most suitable candidate, or, in this case, the ONLY candidate.
Shooting that buck only compounded the late fawn issue.
How is he going to become a "dominant" buck if he is dead.....and you are disgusted.
20 does and no bucks is less productive than one doe and one buck.
How would the proposed regs have changed your season last year....you still would have killed that buck.
Please don't say he was inferior, the genetic thing is impossible to prove as you can't tell me the does genetics and he was too young to know.
This is why we have such a hard time with sound deer mgmt., we as hunters don't practice what we preach.
As far as the DEC.....if you don't like their policies.....change em.....we need your help.
Sorry, but I had to vent.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

*Buck Tags and Money*

Ok. I will reiterate the proposal being considered as a good idea.

One Buck Tag issued to Hunters. This one buck tag is valid for Regular season, and if you purchase archery or ML, this buck tag then becomes valid for those seasons to that hunter as well.. That is the ONLY buck tag a hunter shall receive that comes included with your license purchase before the start of the season.

Early archery hunters who fill this tag during early season get the opportunity to PURCHASE a second AR Buck Tag, which is ONLY VAILD DURING REGULAR SEASON. You cannot go and harvest a buck first week of archery, buy your second AR tag and then harvest another buck (AR Buck) before start of shotgun season. This AR buck tag is also NOT VALID for ML season. All hunters who fill this tag in early season and wish to get another for Reg season must Pay $10 for that tag, and prove it was reported. The tag carries an AR, whatever the AR is decided upon.

NOw, I understand folks get their dander up when talking about more money to the DEC, "They'd love it", which is true.

Here's a tasty little fact for all that do not know this... the NYS Conservation Fund is staring at a deficit of at least $4.5 Million this year... First time ever. This is where much of the funding for Outdoors recreation and management comes from. This money also helps the STate purchase lands for public hunting/ fishing access. At a deficit of $4.5 MIL, how do we do this? With continued license sales declines, which directly affects the CF, what are we to do? 

SImple. First buck tag comes ewith license. Second AR buck tag costs more money, regardless of how many licenses you purchased. If you gun hunt reg season only, you get one buck and that is it. NO second buck for you.

I think this is pretty sound and responsible. It accomplishes much, without burdening hunters (average hunters as enthusiasts will not be challenged) with confusing new regs. Although we enthusiasts would love to see AR or another means to improve buck quality, the average hunter just wants to harvest a buck. We also must recognize that the Enthusiast or serious hunter makes up roughyl 10% of all hunters. The driving force behind the funds in CF are the one-day warriors. True the world over.

SO, let's be very careful that we do not make laws that will completely disenfranchise the average hunter. We end up hurting ourselves in the process.


----------



## Adkhunter (Jan 11, 2005)

alwayslookin said:


> I also just read that you shot a young buck.....how does this fit in with ANYTHING you are trying to do.
> The concept of a DOMINANT buck is the only breeder is absolutely false. A doe will stand when she is ready, for the most suitable candidate, or, in this case, the ONLY candidate.
> Shooting that buck only compounded the late fawn issue.
> How is he going to become a "dominant" buck if he is dead.....and you are disgusted.
> ...


Arietta, not far from where I hunt much of the time. I hunt just west about a county over. Congrats on your accomplishments in that neck of the woods.
I understand your feeling and thoughts. 
As far as me shooting the very late buck that was in the process of breeding a doe. He was a favorite little buck too! :wink: My point is that if you don't impliment law shooting older deer is not going to happen everywhere even from me. There are areas that I hunt where anything is game. There are also areas where only mature deer are game. You have to "force" people to comply. I use the word force very loosely. 
You are right about the dominant buck issue. Any little scrapper will get his jollies any chance he gets but I'd much rather hear antlers clashing than a gentle tinkle of spikes. That right there is an exhilerating experience and then to see the ground just torn to up even heightens the experience even more. Some only wish they could hear and see this but may never due to the demographics of the population. Heck, I know lifetime hunters that are ready for the grave that have never seen or heard it. These aren't weekend hunters either.:wink: 
We also have the probelm of older hunters not hunting as much but still thinking that they should be seeing and shooting the bucks that they once saw.  These guys need to wake up. Crap. Every year, one place I hunt, I see bucks and pass hoping to see a larger one. I'm not passing hoping for a monster might I add. I pray for a 16 y/o to be sitting just 200 yds away
as that same deer walks by. I hope he or she shoots some of these as their first buck. I just hope every one that I pass up doesn't get wacked by "joe hunter" just because this was the first buck he has seen in 5 years of hunting yet only gets out 2 times a year. 

Doc, people won't fly with your proposal. 
How's this and I'm not saying it's better..... 

One buck tag no matter what season shot in. Non-transferral of DPM's and only those who harvest with ML or bow are capable of any additonal DMP's when the doe harvested is checked in. This would encourage more to hunt with the ML and bow which would increase sales of those licenses while still appeasing the "regular season" guys. If they qualify, they still get a shot at two deer but no matter what, only one buck can be taken by anyone.
or enact AR with this but allow the youth, possible hunters under 20 , as well as what say anyone over 65 to take any buck. Bang! That helps to keep more young hunters by not restricting them so much and and allows them time to gain experience and keep more elderly in the sport while aging the herd a bit at the same time. This would also apply for non-resident hunters.

If you start charging much higher license fees more poaching is going to happen. It's bad enough that guys are now road hunting suburbia with their bows. It's quiet and efficient. Illegal as all heck too! 

The starting of the CF in the hole this year is because of what??? How do you start in the hole without overspending the previous year/s and, or without improper management? That is an entirely different topic that I'm not going to scratch. I may not even have a handle enough on the issue to either. The waste spending is excessive though. If you don't make it, you shouldn't spend it and just because one year you could spend 5 gazillion dollars does not mean that you should count on spending that much ever again. The problem is, we do. Pathetic. No wonder the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The rich know how to handle their money...the poor go into debt just like the CF. :sad: 
I consider myself poor too!!!  Practice what we preach? NOT! LMBO


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

Adkhunter said:


> Arietta, not far from where I hunt much of the time. I hunt just west about a county over. Congrats on your accomplishments in that neck of the woods.
> I understand your feeling and thoughts.
> As far as me shooting the very late buck that was in the process of breeding a doe. He was a favorite little buck too! :wink: My point is that if you don't impliment law shooting older deer is not going to happen everywhere even from me. There are areas that I hunt where anything is game. There are also areas where only mature deer are game. You have to "force" people to comply. I use the word force very loosely.
> You are right about the dominant buck issue. Any little scrapper will get his jollies any chance he gets but I'd much rather hear antlers clashing than a gentle tinkle of spikes. That right there is an exhilerating experience and then to see the ground just torn to up even heightens the experience even more. Some only wish they could hear and see this but may never due to the demographics of the population. Heck, I know lifetime hunters that are ready for the grave that have never seen or heard it. These aren't weekend hunters either.:wink:
> ...


These are fairly decent proposals as well. I will be compiling these ideas and bringing them to the Federation (Erie Cty) for some serious discussion, perhaps to Paul Stoos in the Big Game Committee... We may also send these onto NYSCC - Harold Palmer for their review, as they are currently conducting a mail-in survey for hunter attitude towards QDM.

In terms of the CF. I'll attempt to pass along what Fred Langdon, our region 9 CFAB representative, brought to the Federation in January 2006. I'd have to refer to the meeting minutes for exact quotes, which are on another computer, and I do not have the time right now to go to the ECFSC website and re-read the minutes.

"The CF is coming in at a $12.5 MILLION deficit for this year. The good news is that Governor Pataki signed a bill to get $7.5 million back into the CF as emergency funding due to the CWD containment program initiated last year."

Nevertheless, this still leaves a deficit of $4.5 - $5 million for this year. What is teh cause of this decline? Lowered general budget contributions are chief among them, but let's not discount the declining hunting and fishing license sales across NYS. Hunting license sales alone declined another 10% in 2005 (vs 2004) along with another year of reduced Habitat/ Conservation Stamp purchases, which all of that money goes into the CF.

Right now, proposals are being considered to make the habitat stamp a mandatory stanp, for at least non-residents to start, with a price range at minimum of $5, with the maxinum of $10. Just got this news from NYSCC. 

So, what we need to be very aware of is the license prices as a whole. As you mentioned the last thing we really want to see is another price increase on licenses across the board. That does nothing but drive more hunters away. Yet, if trends continue in NYS regarding hunting and fishing participation (on the major decline), we will indeed see a price increase, and this may be unavoidable if we do not adopt something a bit more reative and less punative. The purchase of a second buck tag is one way to accomplish this. Perhaps we may wish to consider the Regular season only having an AR on that tag? But this is a slippery slope, as the next step is full AR for all seasons.

I do not particularly care for the kids and seniors being exempt from this AR. This should apply equally to all, as we are looking at improving the bucks in NYS? A 17 year old or a 70 year old kills an animal just as dead as someone between 18 and 64. If we're going to adopt QDM/ AR, the age thing must be tossed out the window, IMO. 

However, I will take the varying ideas and bring them to the Federation and NYSCC. The more ideas we get, and the more reasoning behind these ideas we get, the better we will be able to find the right approach to meet the needs of the herds, the ecosystems, the hunters and even the CF, heaven forbid....

Right on! This discussion is becoming very, very productive, indeed.


----------



## alwayslookin (May 28, 2003)

*I can't believe this*

Gotcha.....I meant an AT post with differing opinions, that doesn't wind up in a swordfight!!!!!
Great points all.
I was very involved in the AR plan in VT this past yr., they took a HUGE hit in license sales. Not Good, but in the long term.....people are allready excited for this year. It will be interesting to see what license sales do.
Side note, my NH friends say the 14,000 hunters that did not buy VT tags.....all hunted NH. Their buck take was up substantially.....not good for them , they simply do not have the deer to sustain this. Luckily NY has more deer and is a much larger state, so it is a bit harder to go out of state for most of us.
Doc.....we should go to 1 buck and 2 deer.....my opinion. We could dangle the carrot of a second AR tag if DEC won't go for it.
ADK , PM me your phone # and I will get you down to the farm this Aug., to show you what 4 years of AR and 1 buck will do. One thing we learned right off, if you go to another farm to kill a buck cause you can, it hurts the whole deer herd.......if you can't shoot em in one place....don't shoot em somewhere else......that KILLED me the first couple years. Especially tough where you are.
Thanks,
Blake.


----------



## razors edge (Nov 19, 2002)

*Qdm ?*

if anyone believes the figures put out by the state i have a big bridge for sale cheap. they know less about the deer herd now than they ever did. by their own admission reporting is down by 40% since they went to the phone in system.in addition the coyote population has increased tremendouslyresulting in a fawn mortality of 86% in a recent study.in area 4j which is bow only the herd is so out of balance it's ridiculous due to the unlimited tags that are available.our dec no longer has any physical contact with our deer herd such as going into the wintering areas and doing a head count or flying over the yarding areas like they used to.for them to rely soley on telephone reporting is a joke.as far as antler restrictions it will only work if it is done statewide.shooting 3" deer is counter productive to qdm.all you have to do is to look at the deer management practices of the western states to see what NY is doing wrong. we have the potential to grow quality bucks as good as can be found anywhere but it will never happen as long as the gun seasons coincide with the rut.i am not against gun hunting of any type but lengthining those seasons will only hurt and not help the situation.we presently have people in charge at dec that don't have a clue as to what should be done to rectify the problem at hand.the other skeleton that is still in the closet is the ammount of the landowner damage permits that are handed out freely,granted the farmer has a right to try to protect his livleyhood but do you ever see these totals by county.i personally have heard certain unnamed individuals brag about shooting 50 or more deer on these permits,and the people that hunt around that area wonder why they aren't seeing any deer.as a member of NYS BOWHUNTERS i think it's time that these issues are adressed.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

Yes, the DMAP and Deer Damage permits are not very well thought out at this moment, and rumor has it this may be changing come this season. I believe I gave a synopsis of Region 9 DMAP and Deer Damage/ Urban DMP reports and totals in a previous post, which I received from Jim Snyder of the DEC. The striking table he provided was the number of deer damage complaint calls the DEC has received since 1992, which have steadily increased. Region 8 leads the way in deer damage complaint calls. 

We can get this information, but how accurate this may be is anyone's guess. Good starting point, but are all kills being reported on this system?

The struggles in determining the deer herd is certainly great to point out. Aerial surveys have not been conducted in nearly a decade (perhaps longer), in fact the only aerial surveys currently done are for Beavers! You can forget about field surveys, as the CF is in the red for this year and the General Budget funding gets the chop chop routine every year, although Com. Sheehan did indicate an increase this year from GFB to allow more forest rangers, ECO's and land stewards to be added to just about every region TY.

But, until we have a new game plan, including land management and wildlife management, we should not be changing the management of deer herds specifically until we have a plan to go by. Simply changing anything for the sake of pacifying a gourp of hunters, without a plan behind it, will do more harm than good, despite the best of intentions.


----------

