If we wished to manage for a natural herd (oxymoron), wouldn't we take the 1st deer that presented the opportunity?
That is what a hungry predator would do. And in the fall that would as likely be any 1 1/2 buck hitting his first rut.

Steve

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.

Not real good at apologies though. And yes you owe one to tsoc for your name calling and downright elitist attitude. If this was a Pa thread AJ would have locked it because of you.

You know what I meant.In a natural circumstance there would be a more equal representation of age classes of both genders across the population.

I respect the time that you have devoted to this and the knowledge you have gained from it! The DEC has committed to better management or more conscious management,but this is a relatively recent.
I am not a biologist and can only speak from the perspective of a persom that spends an awful lot of time in the woods specifically pursuing deer.My units can be vastly different from where you are from or others that are participating in this conversation.I appreciate and respect numbers but are they enough? Is the survey sample adequate?I know what I personally see as a fairly capable woodsman and hunter covering many miles hunting in a number of locations within my surrounding units.
I may not be sizing up your contentions correctly but it seems that you are speaking in terms of economics and not necessarily what is most favorable for the animals themselves.
If you can direct me to sources of literature or things that you believe may be insightful to me please do.If it can be done without considerable effort on your part.
The gist of all of this for me is that the hunting experience in my area isn't what I would like it to be.I am not convinced that we are doing the best we can with our natural resource.The points that you have made are very valid about under reporting and poaching.There are a lot more layers to this issue than most folks care to think about.

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.

Incidentally, as an FYI

Commissioner Denise Sheehan's last day on the job is Wednesday. She has announced her resignation.

You can see more about this from the following, you can also register and post a comment

http://blogs.timesunion.com/capitol/?p=3318

Why not??? They do in Ohio, and their seasons run from Oct to Jan. You kill a deer, you MUST take it to a checking station.

They have never never never never had antler restrictions in Ohio and its one of the best trophy states.

Plain and simple. Kill one buck in this state. PERIOD.

Its all about personal choice and self control.The DECcan't "manage" that.

Screw mandated antler restrictions, if people want to wait to kill a trophy deer so be it. If a guy/gal wants to fill the freezer, they paid for the opportunity to do that.

I see antler restrictions as a way for lazy hunters to have a "trophy" buck behind every tree. Just like many peoplewant as many deer as possible so they don't have to "hunt" as hard. Hey its HUNTING.

Like I said, the DEC isn't the biggest problem when it comes to trying to manage for bigger bucks, its the NYS hunters, and their inability let small bucks alone. The DEC could help that problem, by taking the pressure off of people "to fill their buck tags".

Just 1...please.

I know I've mentioned this before, but I'll do it again anyway. The state has the tool to pretty much ensure 100% reporting compliance but apparently refuses to use it. All that needs to be done is require reporting for each tag issued whether or not a hunter takes a deer. If the tag is not filled he simply reports no kill. Next, untill he has reported the status for all tags issued, he will not be issued a new hunting license. All that is required to implement this is a computer programming change. When hunters stop to pick up their new license at their local shop or wherever and are told sorry, they'll quickly be headed for the nearest phone. To go along with this change, we should drop the 48 hour requirement for reporting and simply encourage hunters to report promptly but no requirement to report by law other than you can't get a new license until you do.

Curious - is there a penalty for reporting after the 48 hr period?
If so, is it ever enforced?
I always report, but hardly ever within the 48 hrs.

Steve