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

[mazzgolf]

UPDATE: @Mpdiesel did the math and it looks like they meant 6 bucks, not 4+. So I think that's the answer to my confusion. See here

===

And it can't have meant percentages because nothing in that chart added up to 9% (and I remember seeing at least one 9 in that chart).

So now I don't know what they were trying to show... I'm going find out what those red numbers meant, because it obviously was confusing whatever it meant.

Anyway... you can figure it out if you know the total number of deer hunters in NJ --- assuming 20% were successful (which it was around that number) -- figure out 1.5% of that 20%.

Figure 50,000 deer hunters. 20% is 10,000. 1.5% of that is 150.

So for every 50,000 deer hunters in NJ, 150 will kill 4+ bucks. Roughly. 

I don't know what they were referring to when they came up with the single-digit numbers.

Edited October 7, 2023 by mazzgolf

[mazzgolf]

15 minutes ago, JHbowhunter said:

• Buy a deer permit (cost TBD)
• Charge a premium for up to two flexible buck tags, to be used any season any weapon. 

They can build the cost of deer permit and buck tags into what they need to operate

People brought up the costs of the permits and the point they made last night was - they cannot change the cost structure of the permits. It is simply not within their authority to do it. The cost of the permits is fixed in the statutes - so you must have the legislature change it (DFW and Fish and Game Council do not have that authority).

So whatever structure you or they come up with - it has to fall within the bounds of the costs of the permits as they are now. Unless, of course, they work with the legislature at the same time and get the politicians on board to vote on changes needed. This isn't impossible - the legislature just recently added the buddy/apprentice license to the statutes. But, it isn't like DFW can do it unilaterally without the politicians doing their part.

[vdep217]

57 minutes ago, JHbowhunter said:

percentage of, not # of hunters.  That could still be in the 100s if not thousands. 

It's percentage if successful hunters

[smittty]

5 minutes ago, vdep217 said:

It's percentage if successful hunters

No it’s them magical number all biologists carry them in there sleeves. JHbowhunter has it right and is 200% right

[JHbowhunter]

38 minutes ago, mazzgolf said:

People brought up the costs of the permits and the point they made last night was - they cannot change the cost structure of the permits. It is simply not within their authority to do it. The cost of the permits is fixed in the statutes - so you must have the legislature change it (DFW and Fish and Game Council do not have that authority).

So whatever structure you or they come up with - it has to fall within the bounds of the costs of the permits as they are now. Unless, of course, they work with the legislature at the same time and get the politicians on board to vote on changes needed. This isn't impossible - the legislature just recently added the buddy/apprentice license to the statutes. But, it isn't like DFW can do it unilaterally without the politicians doing their part.

That is complete and total BULL SHIT too. No way a state legislature could ever devise this buck tag permit system we have today, that is 100% about revenue.  The deer program had everything to do with it and are the only one's that can "undo it".   Total effing BS

[vdep217]

33 minutes ago, smittty said:

No it’s them magical number all biologists carry them in there sleeves. JHbowhunter has it right and is 200% right

I get we don't trust the numbers but it's the data we have.  We kinda did it to our selves when we advocated getting rid of check stations so it's the numbers we live with.

[mazzgolf]

23 minutes ago, JHbowhunter said:

That is complete and total BULL SHIT too. No way a state legislature could ever devise this buck tag permit system we have today, that is 100% about revenue.  The deer program had everything to do with it and are the only one's that can "undo it".   Total effing BS

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2022/title-23/section-23-3-4/

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2022/title-23/section-23-3-56-1/

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2022/title-23/section-23-3-1a/

I dunno how you get around trying to charge more than $26 a permit when that is the maximum the state allows (other than the one-time only 10% increase allowed by 23:3-1a). Licenses are fixed, too.

[JHbowhunter]

9 minutes ago, mazzgolf said:

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2022/title-23/section-23-3-4/

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2022/title-23/section-23-3-56-1/

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2022/title-23/section-23-3-1a/

I dunno how you get around trying to charge more than $26 a permit when that is the maximum the state allows (other than the one-time only 10% increase allowed by 23:3-1a). Licenses are fixed, too.

Ok so if $26 is the limit which is why they keep creating new ways to get that $26 (except the actually charge $28), then DF&G needs to work to change that. Ohio charges for a license and a deer permit. That gets you one deer of either sex.   You can buy additional doe tags where allowed.  Doesn't get much simpler than that, that permit is good for archery, shotgun, and muzzy. 

[gregtpal]

5 hours ago, mazzgolf said:

 

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.

 

Eliminating permit bow & extending regular bow under 1 license is a no brainer they won't consider because of $.  It's ridiculous to have 2 seasons with all the permits.

[mazzgolf]

For the record, I don't love the permit system either !  

I'm all for getting rid of that stupid rifle permit and combining the muzzy and shotgun into one firearms season, and getting rid of the $2 fee for HIP, and fixing the zone permits situation.

But I got no sense last night that they are considering or will consider an overhaul of the permit system. 

The new suggested regs basically boil down to three things: (a) getting rid of APR (b) introducing new simplified regulation sets with aligned season dates (c) multi-zone permits

That last one (multi-zone permits) was about as far as they seemed to want to go when it comes to changing the permitting system.

[JHbowhunter]

6 minutes ago, mazzgolf said:

For the record, I don't love the permit system either !  

I'm all for getting rid of that stupid rifle permit and combining the muzzy and shotgun into one firearms season, and getting rid of the $2 fee for HIP, and fixing the zone permits situation.

But I got no sense last night that they are considering or will consider an overhaul of the permit system. 

The new suggested regs basically boil down to three things: (a) getting rid of APR (b) introducing new simplified regulation sets with aligned season dates (c) multi-zone permits

That last one (multi-zone permits) was about as far as they seemed to want to go when it comes to changing the permitting system.

you forgot the one that pissed everyone off and was met with groans at the northern meeting- adding the 7th buck tag!

[vdep217]

5 minutes ago, JHbowhunter said:

you forgot the one that pissed everyone off and was met with groans at the northern meeting- adding the 7th buck tag!

Bur with rather data we have it's negligible as so few kill more than 4.  The argument could be made that since so few do it to only give 3.

[JHbowhunter]

Just now, vdep217 said:

Bur with rather data we have it's negligible as so few kill more than 4.  The argument could be made that since so few do it to only give 3.

At this point I don't care if they make it 100 buck tags, the issue is we are not shooting enough does, so their logic makes absolutely no sense. They further exposed their real agenda, because you just know more of those permit bow buck tags will be sold that were not sold before.   BUCK TAGS ARE MONEY PURE AND SIMPLE

[mazzgolf]

8 minutes ago, JHbowhunter said:

you forgot the one that pissed everyone off and was met with groans at the northern meeting- adding the 7th buck tag!

They actually rolled that into (b) - it was part of the simplification of the regulation sets and season dates (basically taking away the requirement that if you shoot 2 during 6-day, you can't shoot another during permit shotgun), but yeah, there was that too.

But I have to say, I was surprised that not a lot of people complained about that one down here. APR was where the main complaints came from.  I mean, APR was *THE* topic for many people compared to the 7th buck issue. Wasn't even close.

[chenrossi]

3 hours ago, mazzgolf said:

As you know, that was actually brought up by a few people last night -- eliminate APR for youth across all seasons.

As a side note, some also suggested increasing the youth cut off age to 18 which I thought made alot of sense. If R3 is such a huge goal, having youth cutoff at 16 hurts that cause because what 17 or 18 year old is going to be able to afford full cost of licenses/permits? You will already lose some of those kids when they have high school sports and college to attend - you don't want to help push them away from the additional cost they need to pay even IF they want to stick to hunting.

I don't think the DFW folks commented either way to those suggestions, so I didn't get a sense of which side of the argument they fell on.

Why would they want to give up 2-3 seasons of revenue they can generate from 16-18 year olds in permits and licenses if it's about recruiting them you say.... 

Hell did you notice they choked and couldn't even get it out for a couple moments who their person is overseeing it, lol. I got a kick out of that. Quite the priority.....

Like I mentioned though in my previous post though, this is a failure across many agencies getting on this R3 train. They all POUND about hunter recruitment, which states in many instances were doing before it had a name. And just hyper focusing on it 1) alienates everybody else already hunting year in and year out and creating/enhancing opportunities to keep them around and 2) people who left the sport for whatever reasons that already had their feet wet in it that would be easier to get back in than someone starting new from scratch. But on paper and for visuals, it looks 'better' to target the discussion about new hunters, which they are so out of touch about. So naturally, of course they don't know where they fall with this argument because internally they don't align either. Carole Stanko flat out said R3 would never move the needle in this state. The person in charge of the deer program and wildlife management. And another made comments about how some people in the state were doing too much for hunters with the new programs they were putting out. What does that tell you about how concerned they are?

Edited October 6, 2023 by chenrossi