By taking these "known" values" (baseline data) a reliable estimate can be made for the surrounding towns. For example, using this baseline data a safe estimate of the deer population for Monroe, CT; is likely to be around 258 deer in total with a 9.88 dpsm.
Interested in any input Monroe hunters wish to provide.
I bet people just stopped reporting deer kills.
This becomes a problem with on a transect that covers, for example, 3 towns they detect 40 deer and then report those 40 as a density (dpsm) for EACH of the three towns. I wish I had a good explanation for this practice but I can only guess.
We've had two private FLIR surveys that rang true with a lot of people with decades of hunting experience in the two towns. Based on a comparison of those numbers with DEEP transects and harvest numbers it looks more and more like those (FLIR) numbers are pretty close to dead-on-point.
There will always be pockets of higher concentrations of deer, make no mistake. What we can't do however is confuse density (# of deer in a particular area) with overall population. They are two very different things.
If nothing else was accomplished by the FLIR surveys of Redding and Newtown at minimum notice was served to the CT DEEP (and others) that hunters aren't writing anyone a blank check anymore and when on-the-ground reality doesn't line up with what they're saying we will question and we will not back off.
Notwithstanding that your statements appear to contradict your not taking sides claim I have to point out that absent any personal knowledge of where people hunt you shouldn't make sweeping generalizations about people not understanding what low deer numbers look like.
People like BBB or myself (and I'm sure others) who have hunted in NW CT for years in places like Norfolk and Colebrook know exactly what less than 10 dpsm looks like.
Even the CT DEEP had those 2 towns pegged at under 10 dpsm for years.
I'm sure you didn't set out to be purposely insulting but next time please invest a little more thought before hitting "submit".
They might not be as high as the DEEP says but there is NO WAY they are that low either.
I thought it before I hit submit Mike (but just for about half a second).
P.S.
If they are that low, I am all for closing hunting immediately and keep it closed for 2-3 years.
Everyone hunting in Zone 11 really needs to understand that the numbers are very low; and with heavy predation we have a big problem.
Please do us all a big favor and don't do to our deer herd what you have already done to your own deer herd in MA.
A few items that are not opinion:
Two privately-funded FLIR surveys were performed; in Newtown and Redding. Those surveys were performed by the best in the business; a company with over thousands of wildlife surveys done and one who consults for several US agencies, including the US Fish & Game Department and the US Forestry service.
The surveys encompassed the entire towns, not a few "honey-holes" (prime wintering areas) so we are getting a true picture of the deer herd in those towns.
As I said at the start I have complete respect for opinions and for differences of opinions. At some point though, respectfully something concrete has to be laid on the table as a counterpoint.
At the end of the day the issue won't be decided by gut feelings, opinions or how anyone's big toe feels on cold, windy days; it will be decided by what the facts say.
To any who dispute the facts; fine-lay your countering facts on the table and let's have that discussion.
We have quite a bit of snow on the ground, drive around, and then get out and hike a bit. Do you see tons of tracks or just a few? With new snow every few days you get lots of chances to do this.
Anyone interested in having a firsthand look at Redding can get in touch with me. I know the town pretty well, including where the culls are/were. We can drive around the whole area, then get out in the woods and you can see for yourself.
Is it 7.5 dpsm, or 10, or 30? I don't know the number, but I know that deer leave tracks in the snow.
And just for the record, I hunted western MA for years, (Berkshire Cty) and lived in Maine for 4 years.
Example: I hunt in an area where there are few deer and travel to another that seems to have 3X more deer. I form the opinion that the first area has 8-10 dpsm (based on DEEP or other hunters or whatever) and second area must have 30 dpsm because I'm seeing a lot more deer.
The facts could show both areas hold the same total deer, but you happen to find a pocket in the second area, nothing more.
I've hunted the NW for 46 years now, and I've seen areas become void of any deer, but through scouting and homework, I've been able to find pockets in the same general area where the hunting has been GOOD. That doesn't mean the entire area holds the same number of deer as it did 46 years ago, nor does it mean the higher numbers in the "pocket" are representative of the entire area.
I know the deer herd is lower today in "general" than it was 46 years ago. Do I care if the numbers are 8-10 or 30-40 dpsm? Not at all. What I consider GOOD hunting others may say is terrible. What I do care about is sound game management so my grandson can have the same hunting experiences that I've enjoyed.
In 2013 regular season Dave reported 20 deer taken outside of Redding.
In 2014 Dave the self-proclaimed local spokesman for White Buffalo was very careful to report most of his deer as taken in Redding, CT. How would Dave take 40 deer in 2014 / 2015 season in Redding? The answer maybe is as simple as; He didn't? To your point perhaps Dave saw and shot the same deer you saw in other towns. The bigger question would be what did Dave do with 40 deer?
I agree with steve have any of you guys every met dave streit? Nothing against the guy but for him to shoot 40 deer in a year in a area that has 7-10 deer per sq mile.....well then I guess we should all take hunting lessons from him! seriously if #'s are that low he wouldn't be doing that....he isn't that good.
on another note my friend that works for the deep( yes he is a deer biologist) told me that during his fly over they counted hundereds of deer, he said with out a correction factor it still came out to 32 deer per sq mile, again that was actual deer counted.
I agree the deer population isn't what it was in ct, but it is no where near 10deer per sq mile.
im done with this subject. its getting stupid around hear
as usual - just because I say it doesn't mean it's true! Great point.
Did I say how I look just like George Clooney?
I would imagine to a hunter 10 DPSM in an a suburban setting seems like a lot more deer than 10 DPSM in a big woods setting.
With houses and neighborhoods, parking lots, roads, etc, a SM in suburbia does not equal a SM in the woods. Don't you have to take that into account?
Toonces is making a great point.
Yes a SM is a SM, however a SM where the habitat is covered with buildings provides much less living space for the deer. Therefore the 10 dpsm are congregated into the remaining living space. Once you go outside to find deer you only have to look at that small space to locate them.
Take the same 10 deer and put them in natural forest with no buildings, ponds, lakes, cliffs, etc and they can spread out, making them more difficult to locate.
In suburbia you can subtract out a lot of that square mile as being impossible to hold deer or hunt (homes, roads, parking lots, etc).
You can apply the correction factor 14% to any of the FLIR surveys completed in 2015; just remember to subtract the deer taken in January after the survey was done.
I have to say that poeple exaggerating about how many deer they kill, how big the buck was, the size of the fish that got away, how many women they slept with is only natural. Most people would have no problem believing that the stories of killing 40 deer fit into this category.
1. No one disputes the number of deer seen on the aerial transects performed by the CT DEEP; what is disputed is the misapplication of the method to report deer densities for an entire town.
In the example jd posted above you cannot label the population as 32 dpsm when your transect only covers 5% (or less) of the towns you surveyed. As these transects often cover multiple towns this amplifies the error, further skewing the numbers to the high side.
On another thread I tried to illustrate this mistake by using an example of a town containing 20 churches and a size capacity ranging from 50 people to 500. If I went to 1 church (5%) that holds 500 people, did a head count and had 425 people in that church I cannot state that every church in that town will have 425 people in it every Sunday of the year.
This is EXACTLY what the CT DEEP is doing with their surveys when they count hundreds of deer over 3 towns, surveying between 3-5% of the total square miles of those towns and then extrapolate those numbers to a town-wide deer density for each town.
There's a term for this type of science; junk science.
2. The only way you can report a deer density per square mile for a town is to do an actual census, as was done with the privately-funded FLIR. Working from a total population you can then divide that number by the square miles of the town and report a town-wide density as dpsm.
3. When someone claims it is impossible to have any one person shoot 40 deer with a dpsm of 10 they have a very poor understanding of what deer density means and an equally poor understanding of math and statistical probability.
If Redding had 10 dpsm there would be 315 deer give or take. Not only can one person shoot 40, 6 others can do likewise and you still have 35 deer available.
Is this likely? Of course not, but it certainly isn't impossible. To categorically state one person couldn't do it could easily qualify one for a Darwin award.
The confusion about deer density and what it means needs to be addressed (again). Let's take Redding again and for ease, let's go with 10 dpsm or 315 in total. This does not mean that every 1 square mile of Redding has 10 deer; one can have 45, one can have 5, one can have 55 and some may have none at all; for a town-wide deer density the only numbers that matter are the total square miles (31.5) and the total number of deer (315).
How those deer are distributed is up to the available habitat and the preference of the available habitat.
This is another big flaw with the CT DEEP's numbers; they compound their mistake of not surveying the entire town by assuming an equal distribution of deer throughout the town. Everyone on this forum should know that's nonsense (or to use jd's word-nuts).
The transects the CT DEEP flies are also over known areas of high concentration of deer (wintering areas). This magnifies their error even further. It's analogous to stacking the deck in a card game.
4. The correction factors for the FLIR have been posted probably close to a dozen times on multiple threads (I even posted a link on at least one occasion to Vision Air Research's website and advised anyone who wanted to understand the method to look it over.)
5. No one has ever stated that the privately-funded FLIR was the be-all, end-all of deer counting. As mentioned in #4 the correction factors have been given multiple times. What has been stated and is factual is that it represents a much better and more reliable picture of what the on-the-ground reality is in the two towns surveyed and likely for much of FF county than the flawed methodology used by the CT DEEP.
Now as I stated above I fully respect everyone's right to their opinion and have equal respect for everyone's right to post theirs.
As I said though, at some point it becomes incumbent upon the naysayers to pony up some facts; your opinion may be you don't buy 10 dpsm; fine, but at some point it is fair to ask upon what facts you're basing that opinion on.
That is how a discussion of a worthwhile nature progresses; we move past opinions and share and compare facts. Ultimately the facts win out.
"You're nuts", "this is stupid" and "my friend at the DEEP says" are not facts.
I'm perfectly willing to discuss facts, even contrary ones; if you don't have them just admit that and keep your opinion as is without the allusions to an inferior mental state of the side posting facts.
That type of behavior is beneath the importance of the topic.
be careful with using the harvest report to determine or even get a feel for deer herd size. As the regs changed over the years by allowing baiting, more tags, a bad reporting system, cross bows, longer seasons, etc the number of deer taken can certainly increase, but that also means the number of deer remaining can be far less. At some point the kill numbers will begin to drop, even with all of the above changes and that's when the herd is at dangerously low levels.
BBB Remember DEEP utilized deer harvest numbers to determine bag limits and set deer management goals for years without a problem. It was only when the helicopter transects with manipulated data started that we began to see inconsistencies in harvest vs population trends.
We are now seeing the effects of "baiting, more tags, a bad reporting system, cross bows, longer seasons, etc" in Redding and surrounding towns; And yes dangerously low levels that could lead to herd collapse.
Time for a change in attitude...
exactly my point. Using the harvest numbers as an indicator for the health of the herd is mis-leading when so many other variables have been added. The fact that the DEEP uses them, as you have stated, is another piece of the puzzle that doesn't fit into determining the number of deer.
Shoot just hte mature bucks and let the doe and small bucks walk. That's what works for me.
