Do you want me to post the harvest numbers? How much history would you like? I have the last 15 years. Will take a little time to work into a format to publish here, but I have the figures. Got the bear harvests, too, just in case, same time period.

Yes, the DEC manages population as a whole. They do not manage for "quantity" as you state, per se. Managing for quantity is maximum number of deer per acre that the land can support. This is what they used to do, up until 2002/ 2003. But what was happening was years of high deer numbers, then years of low deer numbers. A see-saw effect is something that is not healthy. However, many pressures came to bear upon the DEC, from hunters, from the farm bureau, from insurance companies, and from individual property owners sustaining damage from deer finding their landscaping to be tasty and easy pickins. We then got on that merry-go-round of ups and downs in numbers.

The DEC is now attempting to manage to keep numbers stable, while matching habitat ability to sustain deer as the dictator of how many deer per WMU need to be harvested. If they want 2 bucks per sq mile or 4 bucks per sq mile, or whatever, that's their goal. This is spread out across the entirity of the WMU, and some parts of a WMU may support more deer than other parts. That 4 per sq mile may have come from a 300 acre area. But, across the entire WMU, the number equates, goal achieved. Number of anlterless animals is based on another set of criteria.

Fortunately, the DEC has addressed DMAP and DDP permit programs. They just implemented a new structure this year. This will take a couple years to bear fruit. But we do have a ways to go before we get on track.

We have many flaws in our deer management practices. But, again, we are dealing with nature and wild animals, no system will be perfect, but one thing is certain. Whenever you inject a higher complexity of management into an already difficult to control scenario, you open the door to a myriad of failure potentials, a risk management that is really toom high to justify, considering no biological benefit to the herds health exists. We are now talking about managing age structure and buck doe ratios, and trying to "grow larger bucks". We do not have the information collection system to assure any degree of success. That is reality. Even if the funding is miraculously found to implement such a massive overhaul, and tossing out the learning curve that will invariably be needed, we have larger issues with game harvest reporting from the hunter. We also have to rely upon each hunter who harvests an animal to provide an accurate age assessment.

Do you honestly believe hunters will embrace something like this (more demands on reported information?) We went to the phone in system to make things "easier" and that has been a boondoggle to say the least.

Let's look at this with reality, not rose-colored glasses. You and I may be capable of providing this information, but the majority of hunters cannot. They don't care. But they spend lots of money, funding all the efforts we need. AR is tossing the baby out with the bathwater, just like Saturday opener move. I told the State exactly how much money they would lose (between 28% and 32%) by making that move.... Guess what, I was right. And I'm right on this one, too. I'm too good with numbers and reality. Spent 12 years as a marketing guru. I also have a degree in Biology (Marine Science/ Biology) so I know a little about the biological aspects, too.