This I understand. Yes, we do have vast differences from one part of the state to the next. I suspect you are in Eastern NY, and you guys have some serious problems with development and encroachment into wild areas. You have some issues we do not have here in WNY (yet).

What would you like? PM me your email address, and I will send on what I have. Some of this are the minutes from some of the Federation Meetings, others are the harvest reports from the DEC, others are from USF&W.

I am approaching this from an economic standpoint as well, because that is our strength in protecting the wildlife, and our heritage. We have 101 of 150 State Assemblymen and women from south of the Tapanzi Bridge - Liberal Democrats that support such entities as PETA and HSUS. They also support the Brady Bunch and would love nothing more than to see hunting crippled, because hunters are the primary line of defense in the battle over the 2nd Amendment. Its as dirty as it gets. And its gonna get worse in the next four years. I received the list of potential nominees for the new DEC commissioner (Denise Sheehan was appointed by Pataki, and will be replaced by Spitzer real soon). Do you know that not a one of them is truly conservation-minded? They all wear the badge "environmentalist", not conservationist. Our only strength is economic impact. That's it. Yes, we do a ton of great works, we all know this, but, when it comes to politics, the only thing, and I mean the ONLY thing that gets the attention is money. Sad, but true.

Let me know what you would like, in terms of information, and I'll send on what I have.

Oh, and just to clarify, I wasn't calling you a Blithering Idiot. What I was saying was that when folks use "made up" numbers to support a statement, then try to discredit the real numbers that are being used (DEC numbers) to attempt to bolster one's own agenda, well, that's where the Blithering Idiot Award comes into play. If you thought I was labeling as such, I apologize. Whoever made that observation was actually spot on. The DEC is struggling big time right now with harvest reporting. I do not have this documented, but I have a pretty good memory, so indulge me.

February 4, 2005 - Public Hearing on Big Game Season Regulations Changes, Blasdell, NY Blasdell Elementary School Auitorium. Jim Snyder, retired Region 9 Sr Big Game Wildlife Biologist stated that reporting of harvest had fallen from an estimated 95% in 2001 to under 80% for the 2004 season. I remember this vividly because some genius attending this meeting shouted out "reporting should be mandatory!" Just about everyone in the place responded with "IT IS!"

We know the DEC cannot count every single animal harvested, nor do they have the resources to take accurate aerial or field surveys on a very regular basis (every 5 to 10 years). They rely on harvest reports and they also then have a "fudge factor" which is derived from visits to processors, and scanning tags on carcasses. They do this during the week because on w/e's the database is not accessible for them. They will swipe the tags and see if the tag has been reported as filled. They take the % of true values (reported harvests) and compare with total tags counted, and average this across the processor visits. The % of tags not called in is the "fudge factor". Yes, they also do count deer harvested on DMAP and DDP, plus they estimate winter mortality, deaths due to predation and sickness, and also deer-car collisions as well to come up with an estimated annual "death toll" and an estimated population count (I am over simplifying the process and mathematical formulas used, but I hope you get the gist).

Here's the trouble I see. Starting the 2002 season, we had a fairly solid handle on numbers (95% compliancy, etc), within +/- 5%. That's pretty good for gauging wildlife. However, since 2002 (4 years removed) the harvest compliancy is now hovering around 78%. This forces more guesswork and opens up the margin of error, which compounds itself each and every year, does it not? For instance, if we were off by 5% the first year, then 15% the next year, then 20% the next year then 25% the final year, we could have a number that is anywhere from 15%-40% off the mark. This gap is growing. Estimates based on estimates result in less accurate numbers as time goes by. Bear in mind we are not looking at age class, nor are we looking at buck:doe ratios as closely as we would need.

But first is to improve harvest reporting. How do we do this? What is causing the reporting to drop? Answer - simplify the system and offer options. The biggest issue I have heard is the required 48 hours reporting. What happens if you're away at camp for a week, you harvest a deer opening day, and cannot get to phone until the following week? What is the penalty? You're in the computer and if you are not able to report the harvest, will the DEC deny your license next season? WHat if you make a mistake during your 888-game-rpt call? Cannot go back, must go through the process all over again. Did that report count? Are you reporting twice? Etc. Can only phone in, and believe me, the process takes a lot longer than it used to when we filled out the b ack of the back tag and dropped it into the mail box, postage paid, at the end of the season. I would favor mandatory big game reporting from all hunters at the conclusion of the big game seasons (within 10 days). Offer phone in option, mail in option (you pay the postage) or a web based form option to complete the harvest. In terms of enforcement, everyone is in the database. They can flag as reported or not. You don't report, you still get your license, provided you pay a penalty of $50.00 - $500.00, depending on 1st offense or 2nd & third offense. Fourth offense, no more license for 5 years.

At that time, we can start asking for additional information to get a picture of the herd to more detail. But this takes time to implement and get hunters acclimated to.

Perhaps even provide an incentive for early reporting? Credit of $5.00 off next year's license for reporting prior to the end of the season? That one is a tough one.

We have to get the information collection corrected first, before we start down the road of a higher complexity management strategy.

We also have to address habitat on public lands. This is where we need conservationists, not environmentalists. Selective logging of mature trees lets the sunshine in, and allows the tender forbes preferred by browse animals to grow. But the nut jobs south of the Tapanzi bridge has had a let it go wild policy concerning state lands, thinking old growth forests are what we want. Ain't no food in old growth forests! We have to fight this battle to allow such places as Allegany State Park to be selectively logged to improve the habitat, for all animals, not just deer. Starts from the ground up.

We have many components to address and line up before jumping off the AR bridge. I wish more could see this, but emotional desires oftentimes get in the way of logic and reality. I understand that, but I am not willing to compromise the deer for the of "trying something new". Not until all the facts are known, and we are ready with the pieces needed to successfully manage this change in approach.