...and there you have it!

[Deadeye]

On your own land do what you wish per regs. On public land I will do what is allowed by law. I can't eat antlers. (I try to get a couple or 3 deer for myself and family extended. Don't often get three without shooting yearlings in my case, which I try to avoid). 

If rabbits had antlers would we complain about the lack of buck rabbits? My compliant is all "my" rabbit spots from 40 yrs ago are now loaded with deer but can't hunt there because what's left of the woods is too close to shopping malls.  And not much rabbits left there. I think the state did not do too badly over the years to meet targets and keep a mix of hunting chances/methods in the system. We can complain about the details but we have to do that in the right forum as groups to the council that puts the regs.  together. Personally I would like a state constitution amendment for the right to hunt as a first priority  before the progressives stop all hunting. (Hopefully they will see the money loss to the state F&G and change their mind). Then tweak the hunting rules. First rule change if I could do it would be no public lands are excluded from hunting - all must allow for at least a week of something. (archery from stands, etc.).  2nd would be to make the zones situation less complicated. Or if they want more money make multiple zone discounts. (I.e. get 3 zones for 50% off.  ) . Or do permits by  reg set instead of geography.  The real question is what is the right deer population target and are we there or not? I have not looked lately.

I can say that I hunt a reg set zero spot and even with the drivers I am seeing more bucks and just enough deer to keep me there because I rarely see anyone else except for 6 day week. And never had anything stolen there yet. 

 

[Hitemnasty]

Harvest totals imo don’t tell the story of how many deer are left. The majority of hunters I’d say are shooting 1-4 deer a year, they don’t need more than that so they don’t shoot more or less than that. They shoot what they need and the seasons are long enough for hunters to fill their own “quota” regardless of the low deer numbers. That’s what the harvest data shows and is all it shows is that hunters are still able to kill the same amount of deer they always did it just takes more time to do so. It’s not like there aren’t any deer left, it’s just much lower than it’s ever been.

Shorten the seasons and the harvest number will drop because the deer aren’t readily there to shoot with less time.  

Most of us aren’t going out to shoot deer every sit or anything even close to doing that. If that was the case where hunters would shoot deer every sit we would see a drop in harvest totals because we aren’t seeing as many deer as we used to. There will be a point I believe in the near future that the harvest totals will start significantly dropping because the number of deer are absolutely dropping every year. 

Spots I’ve been hunting for decades that would produce deer almost every sit up till 5-7 years ago now are mostly void of them. Now it takes many times in the stand to see the same amount of deer I use to see in one sit, public and private lands.  The state is managing the heard on where they can’t be gotten and it’s a real issue for us hunters. 

[vdep217]

32 minutes ago, Hitemnasty said:

Harvest totals imo don’t tell the story of how many deer are left. The majority of hunters I’d say are shooting 1-4 deer a year, they don’t need more than that so they don’t shoot more or less than that. They shoot what they need and the seasons are long enough for hunters to fill their own “quota” regardless of the low deer numbers. That’s what the harvest data shows and is all it shows is that hunters are still able to kill the same amount of deer they always did it just takes more time to do so. It’s not like there aren’t any deer left, it’s just much lower than it’s ever been.

Shorten the seasons and the harvest number will drop because the deer aren’t readily there to shoot with less time.  

Most of us aren’t going out to shoot deer every sit or anything even close to doing that. If that was the case where hunters would shoot deer every sit we would see a drop in harvest totals because we aren’t seeing as many deer as we used to. There will be a point I believe in the near future that the harvest totals will start significantly dropping because the number of deer are absolutely dropping every year. 

Spots I’ve been hunting for decades that would produce deer almost every sit up till 5-7 years ago now are mostly void of them. Now it takes many times in the stand to see the same amount of deer I use to see in one sit, public and private lands.  The state is managing the heard on where they can’t be gotten and it’s a real issue for us hunters. 

The first part  is where I disagree with you..  constant numbers show a steady population..  if numbers were indeed low harvests would be lower or at a constant down spiral.. which they are not..  I can agree that areas have low numbers and some high witch is where I said zones should be more broken down into specific area needs...

  The area you speak of being almost void.   If you go a mile or 2 away is it the same or are numbers higher...  I hunt 4 different zones and have seen plenty of deer this year and i do hunt a lot of wma... 

Edited December 23, 2018 by vdep217

[BHC]

I drive 120 miles round trip to and from work, I dont see many deer this year as I have in the past,  including not as many road kills, but if we believe the reports by the farm BUREAU of 140 deer per Square mile I should see deer all over.....this morning I saw 12 deer on the grounds of St.Lukes Hospital which is in a residential neighborhood,  saw one deer on Rt.287 in Piscataway.....give me a break about over population 

[BHC]

Those that claim deer numbers are still high or stable,  I challenge you take a stroll after a snow in places like the Newark Watershed see how many deer tracks you come across......take the states data and farm Bureau's data and wipe your a** with them, cause that's what its worth 

[vdep217]

4 minutes ago, BHC said:

I drive 120 miles round trip to and from work, I dont see many deer this year as I have in the past,  including not as many road kills, but if we believe the reports by the farm BUREAU of 140 deer per Square mile I should see deer all over.....this morning I saw 12 deer on the grounds of St.Lukes Hospital which is in a residential neighborhood,  saw one deer on Rt.287 in Piscataway.....give me a break about over population 

No one said over population...  there is s stable population

[BHC]

Stable? Take walk in zone 3 Newark Watershed and tell me what you see

[vdep217]

20 minutes ago, BHC said:

Stable? Take walk in zone 3 Newark Watershed and tell me what you see

Again one small window..  I posted facts with data to support my view where's yours

[hammer4reel]

37 minutes ago, BHC said:

I drive 120 miles round trip to and from work, I dont see many deer this year as I have in the past,  including not as many road kills, but if we believe the reports by the farm BUREAU of 140 deer per Square mile I should see deer all over.....this morning I saw 12 deer on the grounds of St.Lukes Hospital which is in a residential neighborhood,  saw one deer on Rt.287 in Piscataway.....give me a break about over population 

while I don't believe its at 140 per square mile ( which is 500 acres) I would bet its between 60/80  in the area I mentioned along the 78 corridor.. Rt 287 being at least the same

I hunt much of that area and DAILY have 15/ 20 bucks on cams on each farm.

If you drive the square down 31 to Payne rd, and any side roads in Annandale you can EASILY  see well over 100 deer from your car.

 

Newark watershed I believe is more lacking of deer because of the over population of bears and coyotes there, NOT due to hunting pressure

 

.

 

[vdep217]

47 minutes ago, BHC said:

Stable? Take walk in zone 3 Newark Watershed and tell me what you see

So I did it for you..  yes 3 is on the lower side with harvests.   And i can't find other years just last season..  I don't know how big 3 is or how many people hunt it..  

[vdep217]

3 is the same reg set as 18..  I hunt 18 and no shortage of deer in 18..  some wma that is tough but the are deer so yours hunting pressure theory is out .  Reg set 3 is fall bow permit muzzy 3 doe days 6 day and winter bow..  so what could it be..  land can't handle bear and deer.   Coyote population...   

[BHC]

Take the harvest numbers add the number of road kills, add a certain percentage from disease,  predator kills, deers kills not reported cause there are scumbags killing deer not reporting and butchering them, then repeating, and farmer kills  Now with all this added together it would prove how the deer population is way down

[BHC]

3 minutes ago, vdep217 said:

3 is the same reg set as 18..  I hunt 18 and no shortage of deer in 18..  some wma that is tough but the are deer so yours hunting pressure theory is out .  Reg set 3 is fall bow permit muzzy 3 doe days 6 day and winter bow..  so what could it be..  land can't handle bear and deer.   Coyote population...   

That alone proves the state is out of touch with reality

[vdep217]

19 minutes ago, BHC said:

Take the harvest numbers add the number of road kills, add a certain percentage from disease,  predator kills, deers kills not reported cause there are scumbags killing deer not reporting and butchering them, then repeating, and farmer kills  Now with all this added together it would prove how the deer population is way down

No it proves that the population is sustained.   The harvest numbers are that harvests in huntable areas..  the rest make the kill numbers higher thus proving more deer.  A constant number of reported harvests proves stable numbers

[vdep217]

21 minutes ago, BHC said:

That alone proves the state is out of touch with reality

No that is opinion the state can't control numbers in non huntable areas so they have to do it on huntable land..  believe it or not those deer that live on non huntable land do go to neighboring huntable property...  do I believe they can separate the heavily populated and low areas better yes..  

Edited December 23, 2018 by vdep217