NJ DFW Deer Forums for Suggested New Regulations - who went? thoughts?

[mazzgolf]

OK, tonight was the last of the three deer forums that NJ DFW put together to discuss the suggested regulation changes.

Who attended? What are your thoughts?

I attended tonight's southern region meeting at Stockton College. Here's my thoughts.

1. It was supposed to last to 7:30pm but we didn't leave until almost 10pm because they took questions and comments until everyone got a chance to ask all their questions or say their piece (and boy did some people say their piece  ) 

2. I was surprised at how many were opposed to the suggestion of removing APRs. It would not surprise me if that is taken off the table, there was that much opposition. Short of a blanket survey showing a large majority of hunters want APRs to go away, I think APRs will remain.

3. There was some, but not much (which was surprising to me), that complained about going back to the "7 bucks" limit. A couple people asked the DFW to consider a 2 or 3 buck limit, but it wasn't as vociferous as the opposition to APR was.

4. DFW will be sending out at least two surveys in the near future - one specifically about APR, another more generally about the suggested changes. Submit the surveys! It's a "Speak now or forever hold your peace" thing.

5. Guys that simply yell at DFW and lose their composure may make themselves feel better, but it accomplishes nothing other than getting yourself ignored by DFW and annoying everyone else that came there to get answers and give their suggestions.

6. They literally said what you can infer in their presentation PDF they released earlier - they DO NOT manage for trophies. That was said in a public forum by a DFW spokeperson. They are very upfront about that. In fact, they said in some zones (think of reg set 8 for example), they want as many deer killed as possible - doe, buck, doesn't matter.

7. Two representatives for farmers (I think one was from the Farm Bureau? I can't remember) both said basically the same thing - as a group, farmers want as many deer killed as possible - certainly they want the harvest numbers much higher than what they are (I'm paraphrasing).  The owner of Blackwater Sports Center was there and made an impassioned plea to them, "Then provide access to your farms to hunters and we can help take care of the problem!" (again, I'm paraphrasing). I don't know what will come of that discussion - but it seems to me if farmers want more deer killed, and one complaint of hunters is lack of access to land, then here's a perfect example of two groups of people that should get together and hammer out a solution to both problems.

8. Due to the comments they received, I believe the new LOW regulation set will get a multi-zone permit option. The presentation said "maybe" multi-zone permits will be available because they were expecting opposition to it, but they were surprised to hear people were in favor of it. It seemed they wanted to allow multi-zone permits available for the LOW reg set but were hesitant due to their expectation that people would not be in favor. But as long as people were in favor of it, I think that will be a go.

9. Another thing I was surprised at - the support by many in the room for EAB. I was surprised at how many people were not only fine with EAB but even suggested that it be expanded (e.g. extending it to more zones and into the permit season). I didn't hear a single complaint against EAB.

10. One thing I did not realize in their chart showing the number of bucks harvested per hunter was the chart only showed the percentage of SUCCESSFUL hunters (not all hunters). For example, for 2019, they show 98.9% of *successful* hunters harvested 3 or less bucks - in absolute numbers, they said that worked out to something like a total of 9 hunters statewide harvested  more than 3   six. For all years 2016 thru 2022, the number of total hunters statewide who harvested  4  six bucks was in the single digits per year (i.e. they say their numbers show less than 10 hunters a year statewide harvest  4  six bucks). The percentage of all hunters that are successful was something like 20%. (UPDATE: I'm now no longer sure what they meant by those absolute numbers like "9" - the math doesn't make sense but it looks like mpdiesel got it correct here).

This was not a meeting to say, "These will be the new regs, go pound sand if you don't like it" -- this was a meeting to get feedback and hear what hunters thought of it. If you complain about the regs but didn't show up and voice your opinion, shame on you. As I say, for those that did show up and voiced their opposition to the APR removal - I have a feeling they were heard and DFW will re-think that (that's just the impression I got). I think it is possible they will keep APR in some way, shape, or form - especially if the upcoming APR survey shows significant support for APR. And because people surprised them and showed support for multi-zone permits for the mostly-southern reg set (when they expected the opposite), they will likely offer multi-zone permits when they originally weren't going to do that.

I will say, they likely aren't lowering the buck limit to 2 or 3 though, no matter what people said  (but again, I was surprised at the tepid opposition to the increase to 7 bucks, so there wasn't much push back on that anyway).

I'm sure I forgot something, but those are just my impressions from the meeting as I remember them.

Edited October 7, 2023 by mazzgolf

[Pathman]

Thanks for recap and all that info. 
The buck data is very informative, maybe some of the guys will get off the ledge now that they see the minimal multiple buck kills!😉

Edited October 6, 2023 by Pathman

[JD48]

Great info, thanks

[electricstart]

Thanks for sharing

[mazzgolf]

On 10/6/2023 at 7:00 AM, Pathman said:

The buck data is very informative

UPDATE: thanks to @Mpdiesel for straightening out my confusion on this chart - the single digit red numbers likely represented the number of hunters who killed 6 bucks - not 4 like I originally thought they meant

This is the slide I am talking about. In the PDF they released, they didn't give the absolute numbers... but in the presentation last night, they showed in red numbers (where I have the long red circle) the absolute numbers of hunters who harvested 6+ bucks in those years... and no number in any column was greater than 9. The percentages shown here are the percentages of successful hunters, not all hunters. So when it says 98% of hunters harvested 3 or less - they are saying 98% of successful hunters, not of all hunters. So it is 98% of the 20% of all hunters (I forget the actual percentage, but it was around 20% of all hunters were successful in taking at least 1 buck).

UPDATE: Just going by the percentages - roughly 1.5% of successful hunters harvested 4+ bucks. Whatever that comes out to be. Assuming 50,000 deer hunters in NJ, that works out to be roughly 150 people killing 4+ bucks). 

Edited October 7, 2023 by mazzgolf

[thefirstndsecond]

great information you took and laid out.

Did they speak about habitat and what it will hold with regards to herb population?

Or this was all about regs on the table?

[Pathman]

38 minutes ago, mazzgolf said:

This is the slide I am talking about. In the PDF they released, they didn't give the absolute numbers... but in the presentation last night, they showed in red numbers (where I have the long red circle) the absolute numbers of hunters who harvested more than 3 bucks in those years... and no number in any column was greater than 9. The percentages shown here are the percentages of successful hunters, not all hunters. So when it says 98% of hunters harvested 3 or less - they are saying 98% of successful hunters, not of all hunters. So it is 98% of the 20% of all hunters (I forget the actual percentage, but it was around 20% of all hunters were successful in taking at least 1 buck).

Thanks for the additional info and chart. 
Im a bit confused why they would say “successful” hunters? 
It’s fairly obvious if you weren’t successful, you didn’t kill any bucks!🤷‍♂️

[gregtpal]

So there was no financial discussion whatsoever?

No talk about reducing the cost to residents by combining seasons like regular & permit bow, reducing # of permits required, statewide hunting with 1 license or permit, eliminating weekly turkey permits, eliminating the ridiculous rifle permit, eliminating buck tags, less zones, etc.??

[Jcol6268]

My opinion is, if only a handful of guys are killing 3 or more bucks then take them away. In theory there is no significance by their stats. However, that's not reality. 
 

I know more than a couple of guys that shoot a little 4 pointer, and when you're like "I thought you were after that big 10 pointer??" They just explain they have all season and 5 more buck tags to get it done. 
 

If they were limited in those tags then maybe they wouldn't just shoot the 4 pointer to shoot a deer (when they can shoot a doe, which will benefit all of us, and get the state what they want, MORE DOE HARVEST). 
 

For those that shoot two bucks a year. You can still shoot your two bucks a year. And for the 4 people that shoot more, you can shoot more does so we have a more balanced and quality herd while also reducing deer numbers that helps with farmers, car accidents, over browsing, spread of deer ticks, etc. 

 

And it would still allow young a new hunters opportunity to harvest a buck if that's what presents itself. 
 

Personally I'm with @JHbowhunter and the whole system needs to be torn down and start over. 
 

Make an archery season, and a firearm season. You get a buck with the bow, and a buck with the gun. You can fill your buck gun tag with the bow during the firearm season if you wish, but a firearm and bow license must be purchased. Increase license fees (nothing astronomical but so we don't totally wipe monies going towards F&G) and do away with permits. Way less confusing that way. 

[Jcol6268]

6 minutes ago, gregtpal said:

So there was no financial discussion whatsoever?

No talk about reducing the cost to residents by combining seasons like regular & permit bow, reducing # of permits required, statewide hunting with 1 license or permit, eliminating weekly turkey permits, eliminating the ridiculous rifle permit, eliminating buck tags, less zones, etc.??

At the north zone meeting, they had no interest in reducing fees, other then telling us to use the multi zone permits. 

[Lunatic]

Sounds like crying about 6 or 7 buck tags is completely pointless since almost no one takes more than 3 And only 20 % of hunters are successful. 
IMO the problem is  with killing so many BBs, which are bucks. 

[smittty]

They’re trying to say only 9 hunters in the state took 3 or more bucks. I call bullshit.  I will also add that they already have everything hashed out already and that that public meeting is just a show. They have there minds made up and you’re comment means absolutely nothing 

[mazzgolf]

52 minutes ago, thefirstndsecond said:

great information you took and laid out.

Did they speak about habitat and what it will hold with regards to herb population?

Or this was all about regs on the table?

 

The presentation was all about the regs on the table. Some people got up and asked unrelated questions and make unrelated comments. One or two did talk about "the poor land management" but they did not respond to those comments.

 

26 minutes ago, Pathman said:

Thanks for the additional info and chart. 
Im a bit confused why they would say “successful” hunters? 
It’s fairly obvious if you weren’t successful, you didn’t kill any bucks!🤷‍♂️

 

Yes, the point with that chart was they are trying to respond to potential criticism to the "7 buck" rule. They wanted to show how many bucks individual hunters are actually killing. Their point was the number of actual hunters killing more than 3 was very, very low.

The counter-point that a few people mentioned was - because people could always have a buck tag in their pocket across all seasons, they could shoot a few bucks and STILL be able to wait for their target buck. This meant they weren't shooting does (and that was one thing DFW mentioned - statewide the doe harvest is too low. They want us killing more does). So the argument was, lower the buck limit so that as soon as someone shoots their 1 or 2 bucks, they are tagged out. But since most people aren't going to just stop hunting entirely, they are going to continue to hunt. And since the only thing left legal to harvest would be does, it would thus increase the doe harvest. That point was made by a couple people in the audience. I don't know if it resonated with DFW, I did not get a sense one way or the other.

 

6 minutes ago, gregtpal said:

So there was no financial discussion whatsoever?

No talk about reducing the cost to residents by combining seasons like regular & permit bow, reducing # of permits required, statewide hunting with 1 license or permit, eliminating weekly turkey permits, eliminating the ridiculous rifle permit, eliminating buck tags, less zones, etc.??

That did come up a couple of times, and DFW was very clear - the cost of the permits is not up to them or the Fish and Game Council. All costs are set by statute - if you want the costs to change, they said you need to talk to your state representatives and senators to pass a new law because only legislation can change that. They have no control over it (so $28 is the cost of your buck tag and deer permits, there will be no change to things like that).

They said they are attempting to lower costs within the framework and control they have - they point to their suggested expansion of the multi-zone permits as an example. For the new multi-zone permit suggestions, for $56 you will be allowed to hunt in over 10 zones (depending on which reg set you hunt; one will have like 11 zones, one will have something like 17, the third will have something like 15). 

One suggestion brought up a couple times but did not seem to get much traction was why not just combine shotgun and muzzy into one firearm season (thus cutting in half the number of permits/tags a firearm hunter needs to buy). They pointed out that muzzy season was meant to occur first to allow less sophisticated, traditional weapons first crack at it, then allow shotgun hunters to hunt after. Me, personally, if they want to simplify the regs (and that is a MAJOR reason for these reg changes - making the regs simpler), the cutting down the number of permit seasons from 3 to 2 would go a long way (go from permit bow/SG/muzzy to simply permit bow/firearm). But I did not get the sense they would consider that.

 

[mazzgolf]

22 hours ago, smittty said:

They’re trying to say only 9 hunters in the state took 3 or more bucks.

No. Look at the chart again. 4 or more. UPDATE: and I was wrong here. The single digits seemed to mean the number of hunters who killed 6 or more (not 4 like I originally though... see here).

Quote

I call bullshit.  I will also add that they already have everything hashed out already and that that public meeting is just a show. They have there minds made up and you’re comment means absolutely nothing 

And this is why you need to be at the meetings. It isn't already hashed out and their minds aren't already made up. They are begging people for comments and thoughts - they can't even get a 20% response to their surveys.

I mean, as I already said, they mentioned in the meeting that I was at that they were surprised at the response to the multi-zone permits. They were thinking they were NOT going to provide them for the southern reg set because they expected opposition. But based on the feedback they got last night, they are most likely going to change their mind and provide them now.

As for APRs, I really got the sense they are going to re-think that. Will it change? I dunno. I suspect the results of the APR survey is going to really determine what they do with APR. They told us that both the north and south meetings, the APR changes were opposed - in the central meeting, the APR changes were supported.

So when they send out the surveys,  answer them. If you do not, don't complain.

Edited October 7, 2023 by mazzgolf

[Nanuk]

Thanks for all the feed back, very informative. Just throwing this out there , if they want to diminish the herd so badly why not make six day an EAB Season or all season for that matter . And as far as bucks  go for management purpose and to allow smaller bucks an opportunity to mature allow one per weapon season totaling 3 per year .