2017 Game Code proposal - make your voices heard

[JHbowhunter]

I'm surprised you feel that way.  I imagine I know fewer hunters than many on this board, but I can think of a few examples of the above.  A "deer pig" (as I call them) on my road shot > 20 deer last year, most of them does.  No idea how many he killed this season as I didnt ask. Then you have the "deer Saints" who kill a million deer but donate them to Hunters Helping the Hungry as an excuse for their blood-lust and then proudly tell people they're Mother Theresa.

 

 

I know a guy from Vermont who told me that he knows a guy who comes down here with a group to hunt every year, and they call it "Freezer Week".  He wasn't sure where in NJ they hunt, but there's usually 4 of them and they kill a bunch of deer each year between them and the venison lasts all year.

 

Jeremy Balantine is the guy. He's an excellent moose guide and deer hunter, they come down and hunt the water gap national recreation area and load up. He actually has taken a few huge bucks too, but their primary goal is to max out on meat because in Vermont, they can't.

[NJBowman]

This year there were 15 trucks with NH and VT plates parked on key harmony rd at Turkey Swamp wma. This was the late shotgun days. On Sunday we pulled in where they were parked there were 5 deer that were skinned and boned out. Two small bucks had the hind quarters and back straps cut out( my guess no buck tags). Took pics and called the state, don't know if they ever came out but it's all still there. Waste of our resources by non residents. This needs to stop, public land is decimated by this type of action. Where is the council on curbing or stopping this.

[Devil Horns]

The farmer that owned the farm I used to hunt would allow a group from NH to come down every year. They would come the first week of bow season and kill as many deer as they could. They used it for their moose camp.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mazzgolf]

I guess the point still stands though - OK, people know some people that kill 10 deer a year. I still have to believe it is, relatively speaking, rare (of ALL the hunters you know, how many bag over 9?)

 

I have to believe the number of hunters who take 10+ deer is a very small fraction. Looking at last year's license sales, counting hunting licenses (bow, firearm, but not waterfowl stamps, pheasant stamps, trapping or fishing licenses) I count about 89,000 licenses sold.

 

How many of those people really take 10+ deer a year? Let's say 1,000 (and I bet that's too high). That's barely 1% of all hunters.

 

The harvest data shows 2015-16 saw a harvest of 41,000 deer total. The two seasons prior were 52,000 and 53,000. Assume poaching and not calling in the deer in, let's say on average 55,000 deer are taken a year just for a round number. That's less than 1 deer a year on average for each license sold (55,000 deer and 89,000 licenses - 0.6 deer per license sold). This means the average hunter bags 1 deer a year, if that.

 

What I'm saying is - "restricting" antlerless zones to "just" 9 deer is going to do nothing because it affects so few hunters and so won't affect the numbers in any significant way.

 

Now, how many hunters in these zones kill 4 or 5 deer? I would bet that number is way higher - it affects many more hunters and could therefore affect the numbers much more significantly. I have no idea what the number is - 10%? 20%? I would have a hard time believing 1 in 5 licensed hunters bag 4 or more (remember only 0.6 deer is harvested per license sold!), so let's say the number is 10%.

 

So let's do another rough calculation. Suppose 1,000 hunters bag 10 deer a year (I still say this is WAY above what the real number is, but that's just a guess, so let's go for it because the math is easier). That's 10,000 deer. Now restrict them to just 9 deer - 9,000 deer a year total - thus a reduction in harvest of 1,000 deer. Remember, this restriction does not affect any other hunters because only this relatively few 1% of people bag 10 deer.

 

But suppose the limit is 3 deer. Our 1,000 "pig hunters" now only take 3,000 deer. That's a decrease of 7,000. But now consider the 10% that would have taken 4 or more (let's say 4). They have to take one less deer a year. 10% of total licenses is 8,900 hunters - that's a reduction of almost 9,000 deer! And that's just reducing their harvest by a single deer (they go from 4 down to 3). Guys that take 10 are reduced 70% (from 10 down to 3) but that still can't match what you can get if you set the limit down to 3 (even ignoring the pig hunters, you are reducing harvest by 9,000 deer - add in the pig hunters, that's a reduction of 16,000 deer).

 

Back of napkin, setting the limit of deer to 9 takes the deer harvest down from 55,000 to 54,000. Big woop. Taking it down to 3 takes the deer harvest from 55,000 to 39,000. A BIG difference.

 

I have no idea if my numbers reflect anything close to reality, but it seems that trying to limit the "pig hunters" from killing only 9 deer affects so little people that it won't make a difference. You have to make a meaningful limit of something like 3 to make a difference.

 

[DV1]

I guess the point still stands though - OK, people know some people that kill 10 deer a year. I still have to believe it is, relatively speaking, rare (of ALL the hunters you know, how many bag over 9?)

 

I have to believe the number of hunters who take 10+ deer is a very small fraction.

 

How many of those people really take 10+ deer a year? Let's say 1,000 (and I bet that's too high). That's barely 1% of all hunters.

 

 

What I'm saying is - "restricting" antlerless zones to "just" 9 deer is going to do nothing because it affects so few hunters and so won't affect the numbers in any significant way.

 

Now, how many hunters in these zones kill 4 or 5 deer? I would bet that number is way higher - it affects many more hunters and could therefore affect the numbers much more significantly. I have no idea what the number is - 10%? 20%? I would have a hard time believing 1 in 5 licensed hunters bag 4 or more (remember only 0.6 deer is harvested per license sold!), so let's say the number is 10%.

 

 

It's funny how the Division and F&G Council refuse to lower the number of buck tags saying it will not make a difference because so few people kill more than 3 bucks a year, yet they want us to believe that reducing the antlerless limits from 10 to 9 will help...because there are so many people that kill more than 10 does a year, and limiting them to 9 will really help. I don't personally know anyone who kills more than 10 antlerless deer a year, with the exception of an entire club. However, I know plenty of people who kill 4, 5 or even 6 bucks every year, because they can.

 

We need change on the F&G Council. The current crew has proven they are more of a problem than a solution. In fact, as bad as this might sound, I'm now at the point where I believe it might be a good idea to have a few people who don't want to just kill everything, on the Council, even if that means they are anti-hunting. One thing is for sure, there is no way I'll expend another minute of my time or dime of my money to fight for any of them again, I'm done. No more donations, no more rallies, I just don't care if they stay or go. They've proven they do not care what hunters think, or want, when it comes to deer hunting.  

Edited April 11, 2017 by DV1

[JHbowhunter]

I would have a better chance of filling 2 buck tags a year, if they were flexible and limited to 2, as opposed to the current 6 tag system, because I basically only bow hunt, and I  won't shoot young bucks. But that's just me.   (this may not make sense to some, but it's true).

Edited April 11, 2017 by JHbowhunter

[Lunatic]

I would have a better chance of filling 2 buck tags a year, if they were flexible and limited to 2, as opposed to the current 6 tag system, because I basically only bow hunt, and I  won't shoot young bucks. But that's just me.   (this may not make sense to some, but it's true).

 

 

It makes sense if you believe there is a large number of hunters taking more than 2 bucks. I believe there are and most of them are very young bucks.

Edited April 11, 2017 by Lunatic

[NJBowman]

JH and Doug, you both make sense. I think every hunter has seen what NJ can produce if allowed to get some age. Now I know not everyone is into trophy bucks but the way this code is going the expectation of killing even a 6 point deficit n public land goes down every year. Even the driving clubs used to kill a few Giants buck week. A big club by me hasn't killed anything close to big the last two years they hunt mostly public land.

There was a deer committee that was formed out of members of the federation, Ubn, NJOA and different sportsmens clubs. We had probably 300 yrs of deer hunting experience putting their heads together. We came up with 7 proposals that fell on deaf ears. It is time for all those that sit on their high horse and don't listen to be replaced.

[Lunatic]

I guess the point still stands though - OK, people know some people that kill 10 deer a year. I still have to believe it is, relatively speaking, rare (of ALL the hunters you know, how many bag over 9?)

 

I have to believe the number of hunters who take 10+ deer is a very small fraction. Looking at last year's license sales, counting hunting licenses (bow, firearm, but not waterfowl stamps, pheasant stamps, trapping or fishing licenses) I count about 89,000 licenses sold.

 

How many of those people really take 10+ deer a year? Let's say 1,000 (and I bet that's too high). That's barely 1% of all hunters.

 

The harvest data shows 2015-16 saw a harvest of 41,000 deer total. The two seasons prior were 52,000 and 53,000. Assume poaching and not calling in the deer in, let's say on average 55,000 deer are taken a year just for a round number. That's less than 1 deer a year on average for each license sold (55,000 deer and 89,000 licenses - 0.6 deer per license sold). This means the average hunter bags 1 deer a year, if that.

 

What I'm saying is - "restricting" antlerless zones to "just" 9 deer is going to do nothing because it affects so few hunters and so won't affect the numbers in any significant way.

 

Now, how many hunters in these zones kill 4 or 5 deer? I would bet that number is way higher - it affects many more hunters and could therefore affect the numbers much more significantly. I have no idea what the number is - 10%? 20%? I would have a hard time believing 1 in 5 licensed hunters bag 4 or more (remember only 0.6 deer is harvested per license sold!), so let's say the number is 10%.

 

So let's do another rough calculation. Suppose 1,000 hunters bag 10 deer a year (I still say this is WAY above what the real number is, but that's just a guess, so let's go for it because the math is easier). That's 10,000 deer. Now restrict them to just 9 deer - 9,000 deer a year total - thus a reduction in harvest of 1,000 deer. Remember, this restriction does not affect any other hunters because only this relatively few 1% of people bag 10 deer.

 

But suppose the limit is 3 deer. Our 1,000 "pig hunters" now only take 3,000 deer. That's a decrease of 7,000. But now consider the 10% that would have taken 4 or more (let's say 4). They have to take one less deer a year. 10% of total licenses is 8,900 hunters - that's a reduction of almost 9,000 deer! And that's just reducing their harvest by a single deer (they go from 4 down to 3). Guys that take 10 are reduced 70% (from 10 down to 3) but that still can't match what you can get if you set the limit down to 3 (even ignoring the pig hunters, you are reducing harvest by 9,000 deer - add in the pig hunters, that's a reduction of 16,000 deer).

 

Back of napkin, setting the limit of deer to 9 takes the deer harvest down from 55,000 to 54,000. Big woop. Taking it down to 3 takes the deer harvest from 55,000 to 39,000. A BIG difference.

 

I have no idea if my numbers reflect anything close to reality, but it seems that trying to limit the "pig hunters" from killing only 9 deer affects so little people that it won't make a difference. You have to make a meaningful limit of something like 3 to make a difference.

 

reducing it down to 9 will not do anything to reduce the number of kills. I know and have known many hunters over way too many years, and I know only one guy who took more than 10 deer in a season and it only happened once in the span of 15 years.  Even on the farm we lease, with 12 guys and loaded with deer, most guys will take only 2 to 3 deer tops some never get anything. Its a game of statistics. Most guys will hunt just a few times in the entire season so there is very little chance for them harvesting even one deer. You have to live in a trees stand to kill 10 deer.

[mazzgolf]

reducing it down to 9 will not do anything to reduce the number of kills. I know and have known many hunters over way too many years, and I know only one guy who took more than 10 deer in a season and it only happened once in the span of 15 years.  Even on the farm we lease, with 12 guys and loaded with deer, most guys will take only 2 to 3 deer tops some never get anything. Its a game of statistics. Most guys will hunt just a few times in the entire season so there is very little chance for them harvesting even one deer. You have to live in a trees stand to kill 10 deer.

 

Exactly my thinking as well. I don't understand how DFW can think "restricting" to 9 will make any kind of difference. I'd like to know the thought process behind how they came up with that number 9.

[Lunatic]

Exactly my thinking as well. I don't understand how DFW can think "restricting" to 9 will make any kind of difference. I'd like to know the thought process behind how they came up with that number 9.

 

 

IMO they should allow 2 to 3 bucks of any age per the entire season, and that should include button bucks. I believe this would stop the slaughter of young bucks. Last year I hunted 51 times, total of 157 hrs in a tree stand. That's almost entire week of hunting. I took only two bucks that ended up on my wall and I had countless opportunities at spikes and button bucks. I would be ok with two bucks per season because I know in 3 years we would have many more mature bucks to choose from.  

I would also like to add I don't have a problem with someone taking a spike or even a button buck. If that's what makes you happy I will shake your hand and help you drag it out.

Edited April 11, 2017 by Lunatic

[Lunatic]

It's funny how the Division and F&G Council refuse to lower the number of buck tags saying it will not make a difference because so few people kill more than 3 bucks a year, yet they want us to believe that reducing the antlerless limits from 10 to 9 will help...because there are so many people that kill more than 10 does a year, and limiting them to 9 will really help. I don't personally know anyone who kills more than 10 antlerless deer a year, with the exception of an entire club. However, I know plenty of people who kill 4, 5 or even 6 bucks every year, because they can.

 

We need change on the F&G Council. The current crew has proven they are more of a problem than a solution. In fact, as bad as this might sound, I'm now at the point where I believe it might be a good idea to have a few people who don't want to just kill everything, on the Council, even if that means they are anti-hunting. One thing is for sure, there is no way I'll expend another minute of my time or dime of my money to fight for any of them again, I'm done. No more donations, no more rallies, I just don't care if they stay or go. They've proven they do not care what hunters think, or want, when it comes to deer hunting.  

 

 

You are missing a very important point, They are managing money, not the well being of deer population.

[BenedictGomez]

 

I have no idea if my numbers reflect anything close to reality, but it seems that trying to limit the "pig hunters" from killing only 9 deer affects so little people that it won't make a difference. You have to make a meaningful limit of something like 3 to make a difference.

 

The part of your analysis I struggle with is the part you mention about the number of licenses sold versus the annual deer kill.   The only way I can reconcile it, is there must be a lot of people who buy hunting licenses who are not specifically deer hunters, people who buy hunting licenses and dont hunt, and people who buy licenses and only get out during 6-day or a handful of times per year and fail to kill a deer.

 

 

 In fact, as bad as this might sound, I'm now at the point where I believe it might be a good idea to have a few people who don't want to just kill everything, on the Council, even if that means they are anti-hunting.

 

Bad?  No, not just bad, more like the: Worst. Idea. Ever.    Good lord.

 

You are missing a very important point, They are managing money, not the well being of deer population.

 

No matter how many times this is demonstrably, mathematically, proven to be false, people still repeat this nonsense.  I guess it just makes some folks feel good to lash out.

 

Try this ------>  Get out a piece of paper and a pencil, and assuming you're not an idiot, do some math, and you'll quickly see why what you said is false.

 

HINT:  If NJF&G really is, "in it just to make money" like you and some others say, then they do a REALLY, REALLY, awful job at trying to "make money".   LOL

Edited April 11, 2017 by BenedictGomez

[mazzgolf]

The part of your analysis I struggle with is the part you mention about the number of licenses sold versus the annual deer kill.   The only way I can reconcile it, is there must be a lot of people who buy hunting licenses who are not specifically deer hunters, people who buy hunting licenses and dont hunt, and people who buy licenses and only get out during 6-day or a handful of times per year and fail to kill a deer.

 

Yeah, those license numbers will include small game / pheasant / waterfowl only hunters. No idea what the percentage would be. I would say (based on experience and the people I know that have licenses) that a lot of hunters just fail to kill a deer. I've been hunting deer for 3 or 4 years now and haven't got one yet. I know I have a couple friends that hunt maybe a half dozen days the entire year and have only got 1 deer between both of them in the past 6 years or so. There are lots of us out there that suck at deer hunting 

[Lunatic]

The part of your analysis I struggle with is the part you mention about the number of licenses sold versus the annual deer kill.   The only way I can reconcile it, is there must be a lot of people who buy hunting licenses who are not specifically deer hunters, people who buy hunting licenses and dont hunt, and people who buy licenses and only get out during 6-day or a handful of times per year and fail to kill a deer.

 

 

Bad?  No, not just bad, more like the: Worst. Idea. Ever.    Good lord.

 

 

No matter how many times this is demonstrably, mathematically, proven to be false, people still repeat this nonsense.  I guess it just makes some folks feel good to lash out.

 

Try this ------>  Get out a piece of paper and a pencil, and assuming you're not an idiot, do some math, and you'll quickly see why what you said is false.

 

HINT:  If NJF&G really is, "in it just to make money" like you and some others say, then they do a REALLY, REALLY, awful job at trying to "make money".   LOL

 

 

They do, really?

 

I believe all of the idiotic seasons and bag limits we have for deer hunting alone,  are only here to make you feel better when spending the kind of money we are spending for , fall bow, permit bow, winter bow, muzzy, permit shotgun and of course the license. Right there with buck tags, and only one zone you are talking about $340. They take it from you in $28 dollar increments because people would scream about $340. This has nothing to do with deer management.

 

Now I will get out my pencil and paper to give you a specific example. Why do you think they allow one buck in each season? Because if they had a limit of two or three buck for the entire season/yeart they would lose tons of money. Most guys would get their two bucks during the archery season and they would no longer buy buck tags for the remaining season.  In my case, I hunt in two zones, they would lose $224.

Do you still believe  they do poor job managing the money and great job managing deer population. (use that pencil!!)

 

 

And BTW the decisions they make points to one of two possible conclusions: They are managing the money or they are stupid.

 

Then look at turkey seasons and tell me they are designed for one thing and that is taking as much of our money as possible.

Edited April 11, 2017 by Lunatic