So they are b*tching about regeneration in metropolitan areas and using that as a basis for herd reduction in the adirondacks???? The same ecoweenies that are pushing herd reduction everywhere in the name of habitat should devote half as much energy to curbing rural development. A REAL concern for the future of wildlife.

Haven't seen ANYONE professing or proposing herd reduction in the Adirondacks. The article/link specifically deals with Metropolitan areas and a suggestion of 5-10 per square mile, not the 'dacks. Screaming Steel: you are dead on regarding certain development. Question becomes, Where do you draw the line? Fortunately, more than 6 million acres in the Adirondacks has that line drawn. People like Dr. Devito and the Trumps of the world were just the sorts folks involved with the the named below, had in mind when the necessary legislation was administered.

I mentioned the 'dacks in my previous post only because the state constitution, And the APA, by law, pretty much shuts down, within the Blue Line, metropolization.

The article is not about just reducing the herd in metropolitan areas of the state. They are talking about reducing the herd in all areas where they claim the deer are limiting biodiversity.

Gee I wish you'd have posted the entire article in your last post, instead of an out of context snipett. That's why I've made the link above, once again, available for everyone to read. The first two lines, as well as many mentions throughout the article make it very clear, at least to some, that they are talking about METROPOLITAN AREAS.

Taken in context with the rest of the article and the forested areas around NJ, as they mention, they are referencing Metropolitan NY city region, which involves numerous counties, two states, spread with thousands of acres of forested state and national lands, all threatened by the urban sprawl that is compounding the issue. Perhaps your not familiar with the lingo up this way. Look up Dr.Divito's more in depth talk about the subject. I believe the Times article made it past editing when the word " City " was left out of " New york Region ". Up here, we're familiar with the phrase. Frankly I would agree with them on other METRPOLITAN areas of the state, such as Pennfield, Amherst, Albany, etc. All Metropolitan, and definitely in need of herd reduction.

Rest assured, we, the sportsman in NYS won't allow this to be taken out of context by our game managers, as some of those experiencing the issue already are doing.

The post mentioned metro areas and suburban. Though my take is that it wasnt LIMITED to those areas, but anywhere the biodiversity was an issue. Which Id imagine could include anywhere in the southern tier. Though the same excuses were initially used here, targeting "urban problem areas" and deer destroying everything in sight. lol. Problem is, currently those are the only areas that still hold really good deer numbers. lol.


Also note they didnt dwell on human conflict issues that are sometimes reason for reduction in populated areas, but repeatedly preached the biodiversity sermon again and again.

They also did NOT say 5 to 10 dpsm. They said "The deer population in the New York region needs to be driven down, way down toward 5 deer per square mile in order for our forests to begin a slow recovery." and on another occassion later in the article stated "SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN 10 dpsm."

You obviously are rather naive if you think they are only interested in the biodiversity of forests in metropolitan areas. The good Dr. is also involved a push for biodiversity and HR in NJ and Conn.

Cornball

you post should have been titled,

PA Screwed, Whining PA Hunters Say NY, Your Next For Our Non-Stop Bitchin And Complaining About Deer.

WV Gino

ducing Deer Populations For Healthy Forests And People
June 2, 2008
I’ve talked some about his subject from a couple different perspectives. In Pennsylvania, the state is in the middle of a major deer population reduction in order to regrow the forests. According to reports from studies and officials, there are areas where too many deer have destroyed the natural under story of the forest allowing for growth of invasive plant species.
In Connecticut, some areas are battling Lyme disease brought on by too many deer that carry the tick that causes the disease. In both these cases, the solution seems to be to reduce the deer population in order to accomplish one or both, of two tasks.
Dr. Emile DeVito, a conservation ecologist and Manager of Science and Stewardship for the New Jersey Conservation Foundation, has an article in the New York Times about similar forest destruction problems in New York and New Jersey by deer. He offers solutions to the problem, one of which being a drastic reduction of the deer population and utilizing the efforts of hunters.
DeVito says that there are too many deer to count and nothing left of plants to survey, so any money to study and count would be a waste. He calls for population numbers to be dropped to around 5 deer per square mile, claiming this number is necessary in order to allow for the forests to regenerate.
These are very low numbers when you begin presenting them to deer biologists, depending on region and carrying capacities, and you’re sure to get some heated responses from deer hunters, as we have witnessed in Pennsylvania.
Last week I wrote an article about how it appeared that Pennsylvania was tearing down its deer herd in order to build it back up again. In that article, I asked the following question.
I don’t have all the details obviously but if the 10-year effort was to reduce the deer population to 15 per square mile, a number that many wildlife biologists would consider reasonable, in order to regrow the forest and sustain a healthier deer population, why are they looking to rebuild it?
Reader Willard responded to my question about why the state would first advocate for knocking deer population numbers down to around 15 per square mile, only to bump them back up to 20 per square mile once the forests have regenerated.
…..he means that once the habitat has recovered from the severe over browsing that it should then be capable of supporting a larger number of deer than 15 per square mile.
According to DeVito’s article, it sounds as though reader Willard is exactly right.
All nonprofit environmental groups, government agencies, sportsman clubs, farmers, professional foresters and community groups need to work together to reduce the regional deer population to a biodiversity-based carrying capacity, which must initially be significantly lower than 10 deer per square mile, but could be boosted to about 20 per square mile when the forest is once again filled with tree seedlings and saplings, a dense shrub layer, and a forest floor carpeted with wildflowers!
This sounds as though it could be a great opportunity for hunters and hunting clubs, to work more closely with farmers, landowners, community and state governments to provide more hunting opportunities now and into the future to help restore damaged forests and to help stop the spread of diseases such as Lyme.
But here’s the million dollar question. Mr. DeVito advocates for the use of hunting in places where feasible to achieve the reduction of the deer population. Being that he is a member of the New Jersey Conservation Foundation, which basically buys up land to preserve and limits it to mostly hiking and bird watching, would the NJCF advocate for the use of hunting on their “preserves” when certain game species become too abundant?
Tom Remington

Clever, but doesnt fit Gino. If anything like this ever does come about in NY, they wont need "our" bitchin'. There will be a healthy surplus of their own.

I think they may be ok for awhile though. I dont see a huge push by audubon society as is the case here in pa.

Do a search on Yahoo or Google for keywords "Pa deer management audubon society"

And do the same with NY deer management + audubon society.

Pa you get enough pages to fill a long sad novel. Ny, not much 'tall.

As stated, the article refers to the New York region. The article refers to Metropolitan New York Region. LMAO, but THIS article that has been referenced deals with the region of NEW YORK CITY REGION, like it or not.

The big issue in these METRPOLITAN, SUBURBAN AREAS that the ARTICLE talks about, is many allow no hunting, and hunting that is allowed is bow only.

Now, could one day the " managers " say we need to reduce the deer herd below 5 deer per mile in the Southern Tier, Western NY, or the Leather Stocking Area: Sure, they could say that, but it Ain't happen'. You would have to blacktop it all for it to happen. For that matter a meteor COULD hit the Southern Tier, Western NY, and the Leather Stocking area, the Earth COULD start rotating backwards, and the sky COULD fall, could, could, etc, etc. Folks on any given day swear thier coming for our guns day after tomorrow. LMAO

No BlueBird, I'm not Naive at all, only pointing out that once again, reading comprehension is void. I guess maybe I'm refusing to assume they mean something else, or I'm refusing to read more than what's there. I learned early in life it's the way to go. It's reality. The article on page 1 of this thread is clear: Below 10 dpsm in the Metropolitan New YORK REGION. Sometimes crusaders for a cause are their own worst enemy. You need to pick your battles better, and not base them on what's in print, obviously, and in your own state which you seem to have a bit of a handle of, and are probably familiar with the lingoYou know the old saying about what you rea and hear?

One thing I will say about NY VS Pa: While we obviously manage our deer herd far better than Pa, based on your beliefs, Pa clearly does a better job with its fish resource.