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 Bethel, CT; is likely to be around 170 deer in total with a 10.12 dpsm.
Interested in any input Bethel hunters wish to provide.
Why would anyone take multiple does in Redding. Three does over a one-day period in November 2014 seems excessive and certainly does not represent conservation minded sportsmen or good deer management. Pretty irresponsible when taken over bait next to the backyard swing set, considering the low population in Redding and the conditions we are currently experiencing.
every time I see someone upset about a thread I have to ask myself - "Why are they reading it?" The easiest fix is to just ignore the ones that upset you, or read them with an open mind.
This is a forum, which means you come on this site to post your thoughts, read the thoughts of others, discuss the points, possibly learn, possibly teach, or all of the above. If you don't agree with a thread state your case, I'd love to hear the other side of the story.
No JD, what's really getting old is your inability to post anything resembling factual counterpoints despite being asked 3 times to do so to support your varying claims of "that's nuts", "this is stupid" or "my buddy at the DEEP says" as counters to the facts on the table.
These facts have mountains of evidence behind them; all one has to do is google Vision Air Research and whitetail deer surveys to find thousands of surveys and hundreds of peer-reviewed publications supporting their work. The US Fish & Game Department, the US Forestry Service, the Department of Defense and other federal agencies do not make a practice of hiring companies whose resumes contain skills such as "I can call anyone who disagrees with me nuts, stupid or retort "that's not what my pal says:". Evidently they set the bar slightly higher than you do.
If middle school retorts are all you can bring to the table on an important topic then I suggest you leave the topic to the adults in the room and revisit it when you've grown up a bit.
If you've got nothing other than your opinion man up and admit it. For the fourth and final time; if you've got facts to counter the ones already posted then put them up.
Put up or shut up.
Nowadays I just hope I see a deer. That's the brutal honest truth. I hate sitting in the woods seeing nothing the majority of my sits.
CT DEEP transect # 4 shows a deer density of 35.5 deer for 2015. The transect extends into Bethel only 23.75%, approximately 8.43 deer seen. How does DEEP seeing approximately 8.43 deer equate to Bethel having 596 deer or 35.5 + dpsm according to the CT DEEP; it does not !
In 2014 Bethel harvested 65 deer. Bethel has 16.8 square miles and its` DEEP transect density is lower than Newtown by 11.94%. The Bethel deer harvest to square mile ratio is 3.860.
The CT DEEP states that FC zone 11 has 42 dpsm. Highly unlikely and mathematically impossible !
An average harvest of 3.86 dpsm is extremely high...if we use your math, hunters shot over 38% of the deer in the town last fall.
Keep in mind that we have become extremely proficient killers in the modern day. Bows have gotten more accurate. You can easily shoot 40 yards now. Technology has given us amazing advantages to be killers. Game cameras. Bait piles.
I see no reason that hunters can't kill 1/3 of the population each fall in the given scenario.
Whether the exact numbers are close or not. You can't argue there are less deer and we need to stop shooting does in the future if we want a quality renewable resource.
Shawn, the 3.86 dpsm figure is; harvested deer to Bethel square miles ( 16.8 ) and the DEEP harvest number ( 65 ) for 2014; it is not my number; the number was provided by the CT DEEP. Maybe you should question DEEP about the number ?
Shawn - " For all I know they counted 30 deer in that 23.75% area. " As for transect # 4;...... I live on transect # 4 and know where the deer are; and where is it again you live.........MA ?
mike, same to you...lowering you self to the level that you think I am using " middle school retorts"... really man? do you honestly think that these flir studys are perfect? Have you ever looked through one? I have they are not xray vision they do NOT see through trees. Not only that from what I under stand they flew over at a high rate of speed on these flir flights which would also cause missed deer. but I guess this is all my opinion....as are everyone here comments.
However, you have done nothing to prove to me that the CAES and DEEP numbers are less credible than the numbers you have presented.
We are going around in a circle again.
As of right now we have 1 privately funded FLIR, 1 CAES funded FLIR (over a limited area), 1 DEEP transect flight over numerous areas in ffld cty, and 1 CAES transect flight (over a limited area). Three out of four surveys report similar numbers, one is an outlier. I may not be smart but I know that 75% is a whole lot more than 25%.
Vision Air seems to have a very good reputation as has been mentioned. They have also had some less than stellar results in other studies as was shown on one of the other threads. The results of your FLIR have some real pretty pictures in them. THese images are obtained by refocusing the sensor and switching to a Narrow field view. What is happening while they are doing this? Are they missing other deer while focused on the narrow FOV getting those exceptional images??? I don't know the answer to that nor do I know what that would or would not do to the results.
I have made mention to this before and I believe you did as well...the private FLIR and the CAES FLIR were performed within 5 days of each other. THe private FLIR report Appendix A pg 8-10 shows the same general area covered by the CAES FLIR. The problem is that the reports are VASTLY different from each other. I would love to see a side by side analysis done of both tapes by another independent company. That would put the my method is better than your method argument to bed.
To quote Mike in CT...If middle school retorts are all you can bring to the table on an important topic then I suggest you leave the topic to the adults in the room and revisit it when you've grown up a bit.
I'm baffled.
I am not upset at all, not in the least...but I'm not going to sit here while people rant over and over about 7 dpsm. While doing this they are also calling the entire DEEP (from the head of the dept right down to the biologists) a bunch of liars. I work as a scientist in the Molecular Genetics field, integrity is the name of the game while performing tests on patient samples. The results we provide often lead to life and death decisions or treatment courses and options. When I put my hands on a patient sample everything is done to ensure that a quality test is being performed. These biologists are scientists as well. I find it unfathomable that they would put their scientific integrity on the line and report purposely inaccurate results.
Like you I really don't have a dog in this fight, but if you find it unfathonable that scientists or that any profession for that matter is immune to lapses of judgement or outright corruption, or anything in between, your kidding yourself.
Pick up a newspaper once in a while. There isn't a profession in the world that isn't susceptible to it. Having an alphabet after your name doesn't make you a paradigm of integrity and above reproach.
If the guys on here would quit bitching about numbers, agree the herd is in decline, and FIGURE OUT A REASONABLE SOLUTION...we can move along with best practices.
How many guys on here have called or met with Dr. Kilpatrick? I keep asking, but no one answers. It's easy to sit here and bitch. It's tough to go walk the walk.
Everyone wants to go to their reprentative and ask them to sponsor the Sunday hunting bill....but has anyone gone to Kilpatrick and asked him for support in lowering the tag allotment? I know I have.
You have an unwarranted persecution complex as well as a misplaced sense as to whom has lowered the level of conversation here; the bar was set high and an honest request was made for facts so we could have a valuable and much-needed discussion. I have stated on multiple occasions that this is a serious topic and all facts, pro and con need to be on the table to have a serious discussion. You have only rendered a dissenting opinion to date. When I specifically asked you 3 times (now 4 counting the last post) to put up the facts behind that opinion I have gotten nothing from you; zero, zip, zilch, nada.
What you have offered is "that's nuts", and "that's stupid" and yes, those amount to middle-school retorts in an adult conversation.
If I have to explain that to you then I can only surmise you have a vested interest in high numbers and will use any and all tactics to maintain them or you have a lot of growing up to do. Or both.
Now if you've got some facts, let's see them and let's have that adult discussion. If that's beyond you then admit you don't have any and bid adieu.
I wouldn't bitch if the tags were reduced, but its not something I am particularly concerned about.
Arrow, I know you have some solid numbers figured out for towns that have been counted and that's great, I'm not going to dispute any of that. But to say precisely what surrounding towns have for dpsm is not backed by enough data to make a claim like that. The numbers you are throwing around are speculative, and I would caution you not to get too sure of yourself with them. There are far too many variables involved, and many unknowns to jump to conclusions here about the next town over.
Shawn, thank you for acknowledging a point I have brought up as to issues I have with how the CT DEEP transects have been misused. When those transect surveys encompass less than 10% of a town they cannot extrapolate those numbers to report a town-wide deer density for exactly the reason you just listed; they cannot assume an equal distribution throughout the city. In spite of this reality that is what is being done and I’m glad you acknowledge this as wrong.
Again Glen...the same points I made when stating how many deer I saw when driving and hunting in town were said to be irrelevant.
Shawn, I won’t speak for anyone else but I know I’ve referred to such sightings as anecdotal evidence, and with regard to relevancy stated that in terms of factual reporting they wouldn’t meet that yardstick.
As of right now we have 1 privately funded FLIR, 1 CAES funded FLIR (over a limited area), 1 DEEP transect flight over numerous areas in ffld cty, and 1 CAES transect flight (over a limited area). Three out of four surveys report similar numbers, one is an outlier. I may not be smart but I know that 75% is a whole lot more than 25%.
Shawn, there were actually 2 privately funded FLIR surveys; Redding and Newtown, and both encompassed all of respective towns. If the 3 other surveys you mention were over a similar area as the privately funded FLIR's then your point would have validity; as none of them amount to more than a fraction of the same area the comparison is invalid, and when attempting to capture a town-wide deer population the only survey that can attest to actually surveying this total area is the one by Vision Air. I’m not questioning your intelligence and I doubt you’d argue that the point I’ve just made isn't completely valid.
Vision Air seems to have a very good reputation as has been mentioned. They have also had some less than stellar results in other studies as was shown on one of the other threads. The results of your FLIR have some real pretty pictures in them. THese images are obtained by refocusing the sensor and switching to a Narrow field view. What is happening while they are doing this? Are they missing other deer while focused on the narrow FOV getting those exceptional images??? I don't know the answer to that nor do I know what that would or would not do to the results.
Scott Williams chose to cherry-pick 2 examples and one was a gross misrepresentation in which he compared a roadside spotlight survey (no gold standard to compare to) done in 2006 to an aerial survey done in 2013. He also failed to add in the 525 deer taken during the hunting season which given his insistence on those culled deer being including in his Redding counts was the height of hypocrisy. The other poor result was from Shelter Island and given the type of cover was a predictable outcome. The fact that Vision Air did not bill for the survey aptly echoes that the owner likely knew this was going to be a foregone conclusion. You can advise a customer but it's their money in the end.
Regarding the narrow FOV leading to missed deer; I posted a response to Scott Williams dying salvo that put this question to rest; the switch to narrow field is to confirm deer and the wide view covers a 0.5 mile swath; given the transects are 800’ apart there is considerable overlap on both passes.
The problem is that the reports are VASTLY different from each other. I would love to see a side by side analysis done of both tapes by another independent company. That would put the my method is better than your method argument to bed.
Actually that is not a problem at all when you understand the pertinent factors; the equipment, the experience and the survey methods. I’ve posted this all before but Davis Aviation uses a camera that is not optimal for wildlife surveys, especially in the winter. It operates in low-range IR and there is literature to attest to it’s shortcomings compared to the high-range IR that the equipment Vision Air uses. The difference is cost is telling to; DA’s camera can be purchased for under $5K, Vision Airs goes for just north of $125K. DA does not have a certified wildlife biologist manning the camera, VAR does.
Regarding the quality of the results the pictures I posted should have put that puppy to bed. Chicklets or definitely deer; easy to tell the difference between the two. As Scott Williams often stated, “you get what you pay for”. He paid for a $5K camera, we paid for a $125K camera and the pictures spell out who got value and who got taken fairly obviously.
I have also had the opportunity to view a chunk of the DA footage; it does not appear that transects were flown as much as circling over the same area was employed. It also appears that the 9 chicklets appear in 3 instances but in exactly the same orientation. I’ll have more to this analysis when I have more time to really pore over the video. Let me end by saying I was vastly underwhelmed.
While doing this they are also calling the entire DEEP (from the head of the dept right down to the biologists) a bunch of liars.
Again, I’ll not speak for anyone else but I’ve never called anyone at the CT DEEP a liar. What I have done on multiple occasions is state a factual truth; they are misusing the aerial transect survey and as a result are misrepresenting the true state of the deer herd. As long as they continue to employ this practice and base tag allotments on it I will continue to point this out.
In conclusion to any who might question the sense of urgency some posters convey; the best time to put out a fire is when you notice the smoke coming out of a window, not when the entire house is engulfed in flames.
There's a problem with numbers and there's a definite downward trend in deer numbers. We ignore this at our own peril.
I still see comparing the DA footage to the VAR footage as a valid method, as long as we compare the SAME areas. Whether or not the camera is the same is a minor point. Just because I shoot a $3000 bow does not mean that I will outshoot someone with a $200 bow, it's more about knowing how to use your equipment. With the gps coordinates on the footage this should be a non-issue. The surveys were performed 5 days apart, 40 deer did not just up and move out of a ~1sq mile area in that time. It is more likely that 1 of 2 things happened, 1) VAR missed some of the deer or did not count objects that they felt were not deer. or 2)DA counted objects that were not deer as deer or double counted. If it is shown that VAR numbers were incorrect in this ~1sq mile area then it makes one question the results from the entire town. Conversely if the DA numbers are shown to be inaccurate then perhaps the culling for the CAES study should not have proceeded.
I must respectfully disagree with your comments regarding validity not being impacted by equipment.
I posted a citation on another thread that specifically pointed to performance issues with low-wave IR (DA) for wildlife surveys in winters in North America, the conditions that existed when the survey was done. This fact cannot be discounted as it is not analagous to comparing bows.
It is, as I pointed out by way of an example I'll post here shortly, an example of a good tool misapplied.
The example I gave was you take 2 carpenters and tell them to frame a house. Both receive the same lumber, nails, etc. but one has a 20oz framing hammer and the other has a crescent wrench. Both can accomplish the job but the efficiency will not be equal and the quality certainly will not be equal.
This is exactly the point of comparing the respective equipment used; Vision Air uses a much more sophisticated camera that operates in the high-wave IR that is ideally suited to wildlife surveys in the winter in North America. There simply is no comparison to the two methods and the fact that Vision Air's camera is manned by a certified wildlife biologist further tilts the scales in their favor in terms of producing the most likely accurate result.
It will probably be either late Sat or Sunday before I have the chance to just sit and watch the DA video and yes, I plan to note GPS locations. If the same coordinates appear at different times that would be multiple counts of the same objects. If the GPS coordinates are different but the number and position of the objects are identical I'd question the legitimacy of the product-I know that's harsh but as a scientist I'm not overly found of coincidences, especially if they appear to slant in favor of a party with a vested interest in an outcome.
Please tell me that they count all the deer seen in the footage and not just the ones that the wildlife biologist zoomed in on. If the wildlife biologist missed a chicklet or didn't think a chicklet was a deer while flying does not mean that the chicklet isn't a deer.
A wildlife biologist with 18 years of experience and thousands of surveys will be better equipped on the intrepretative end of what a heat signature means.
Zooming in to confirm serves two purposes; to affirm the functionality of the equipment and operator and to provide high-quality imagery to lend substance to the report. Also, as I mentioned above the significant overlap on the transect coverage more than precludes any possibility of skipping over deer while changing views for the purpose mentioned.
VAR counts deer by the way, not "chicklets"; the image contrasts between their results and DA's was meant to provide a side-by-side contrast to the quality of the results. The pictures should have been self-explanatory and were in fact to the majority of the posters on the threads in which they were displayed.
I understand Scott Williams' reluctance to accept the fact that his emperor has no clothes; if he wishes to channel his angst through a middle-man tell him we can simplify the process by him just sending me a PM so that we can have that discussion off-line. This way your time and mine will not be wasted as it is being now to address his concerns.
Let's all hold off on shooting does for a few years. Let the stock rebound and have fun out there. We are stewards of the land and we have a renewable resource....that is in decline from a number of factors. The one we as hunters can control is not killing any does for a bit.
Let's move on and talk about off season bow tuning and new camo or fitness routines or recipes or ....
Happy to answer your question - Hunted Redding on several occasions in 2014. Unfortunately as I expected Redding is very slim on deer. From what I have been told only 3-4 deer were taken from Town Open Space as part of the Town of Redding Deer Management Program.
This past season I could have shot 9 deer that were within 20 yards or less, broad side, standing still, and I only took one mature buck. The season before I had the same shot opportunities on 3 bucks (one nice one) and 3 does, and I decided to shoot zero.
The reason I'm seeing this many deer is because I have spots on state land where there are pockets of deer. Why do these pockets exist? Because I decide not to shoot everything that walks within bow range.
Everyone has the "right" to shoot as many deer as the state allows, but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Why not find some young hunter and teach him how to set up a stand, play the wind, remove his scent, draw back on a live deer without being seen, and then let the deer walk to teach him respect for life and managing the herd. At the very least, share your bounty with other hunters struggling to find a deer by letting them release the arrow.
Anyone can kill deer. Not everyone can let them walk.
You have two confirmation numbers from the State of CT for 11/4 and you checked in 3 deer on that day; two of which have the same confirmation # 1405575 and the other confirmation is # 1405576 was also checked in on 11/14. Three deer with only two confirmation numbers.
"Ben - Here are all three of your deer checkins for 11/14.....Maybe this will jog your memory for the three deer checkin # `S 45, 46, and 47.....In one day."
My family eats nothing but venison or fish I catch all year long. It doesn't last as long as you guys think when you eat it 4-5 times a week.
All my deer are reported legally, I have no control over how a teenage girl who takes my breakfast or lunch order, and also checks my deer logs her data. I was there that day, I know what I did, and I know it was perfectly legal. If you want to continue making yourself look stupid, feel free to post more nonsense.
First off, if you can't handle processing 2 deer, you either have no idea what you're doing or you're just plain lazy. I've done 5 in a day, I've done moose, and didn't complain because I love all aspects of the hunt.
As far as promoting people shoot more deer, I have no worries. I gain access to hunt property's because I actually do what I say I'm going to do and that's reduce the deer population. My reputation speaks for itself.
Can you explain then why line 47 was even necessary when the first pink tag number listed is for the second doe you checked in under confirmation #1405576, which was pink tag #92746? As that was #3 pink tag why didn’t you simply turn in the other 2 pink tags and then on line 46 she could have filled in your green tag number and you’d have been done?
There is no reason for anyone to have entered anything in line 47 unless it was to check in a 3rd deer. It certainly appears that is what happened as you turned in your pink tag from the deer you checked in line 46 with 2 other pink tags.
It doesn’t seem likely that you “forgot” the 2 other tags and returned; by this time line 47 would have been filled by another hunter and the girl could have simply entered the 3 pink tags on line 46, entered your green tag number on the same line and you’d have been on your way.
I’m sorry but your story just isn’t adding up.
Lyme disease - check yourself for ticks, you don't need to kill the deer to avoid lyme. I've hunted for 46 years and never had a tick bite, and this includes sitting on the ground in the spring for turkey.
Car/deer - hit one deer in my life (64 yrs old) and that was not in FF county, it was in Wolcott on Rt 69, but I saw it just before in jumped in front of my truck and was able to avoid major damage. I would tell the people in FF to get off their cell phones and pay attention to the road, just like I do when I travel to/from the NW corner in the dark each fall.
Dr Williams said you can't go by what hunters are saying because we don't have the science behind our statements, it's all anecdotal, so if you're seeing lots of deer and killing lots of deer it doesn't mean that FF county has lots of deer.
I don't think anyone on this site is saying they want 30-40 dpsm. I think they're saying the state's numbers are wrong, there are less than the 30-60 dpsm, and they want the herd to be managed better.
If you're saying the FLIR doesn't prove anything then, well,.....not sure what else to say other than a picture is worth a thousand words.
Ben - " my question of how many deer should this suburban habitat actually sustain for MY own selfish desires ? "
Read slowly, I can`t type any clearer; The FLIR survey results showing the current deer populations for 2015, have been posted for both Redding ( 234 deer or 7.43 dpsm ) and Newtown, CT ( 689 deer or 11.41 dpsm ).
It`s clear that your own selfish desires exceed your limited comprehension skills. Save your Dave Streit song and dance sales pitch for the soccer moms; no one here is buying it.
If a bag of corn next to the swing set in the backyard where you can see 8 houses from your stand is your formula for success in Redding with less than 8 dpsm.
Why wouldn't you just stay in your own back yard and save all the time and gas?
what an excellent point.
Where's the scouting, patterning the deer movements, finding the food and bedding areas, looking for escape routes, finding deer scrapes and rubs, playing the wind and using it for a stalk or still hunt?
Sitting in the kid's playscape waiting for your targets to show up is not what I consider hunting.
If trail cam photos determine the number of deer then we need to tell Dr Wlliams to save the thousands of dollars spent on the aerial survey and go to Dick's to buy some trail cams.
How does one effectively scout a property less than 10 acres? You're assumptions that I can't or haven't put miles on my boots in pre season and pick apart deer sign and terrain is comical.
And if hunting in suburban ct near the kids play scape isn't your idea of hunting why do you have such an opinion on deer densities in this environment?
Riddle me this, what percentage of land in redding or newtown is open to public hunting? You can even include watershed property which you must have a permit to hunt.
What's next; a door to door search for Bambi by the National Guard ?............ An Amber Alert ? With the DEEP stating there are approximately 1,200 + deer in Redding, CT they have a real problem and need to find these missing 966 deer before they start to look a little bit silly ! After all, how would it look for these Dr`s and PhD`s to lose 966 deer ?
The answer could be as simple as the deer are not there and never existed to begin with. Then again, wasn't a privately funded FLIR survey done in 2015 showing both the town wide number of deer ( 234 or 7.43 dpsm ) and their locations in Redding, CT ? Maybe that was too simple !
scouting 10 acres would require all of 30 - 40 min. Walk the perimeter of the property, see where the trails are leading to and from, pick a spot and you're done. Compare that to scouting 2600 acres of state land in the NW corner and let me know when the comedy starts.
I don't have to hunt FF county to have an opinion on deer management in the state of CT. I've been in direct contact with the DEEP for years, by mail, by email, by phone and in person. The NW corner where I hunt has seen a huge decline, so much so that they finally agreed to do a fawn mortality study in that area.
I have no problem with you or anyone else hunting the backyards of FF county, all I said is it's not for me. I like the big woods where I won't see the school bus dropping off the kids or hear the sounds of little Johnny playing on the swings next door.
I went to New Mexico and hunted elk in the Cibola National Forest by myself where there's tens of thousands of acres to scout. To me THAT is what hunting is all about, not killing as many deer as you can. That doesn't make me a better hunter, just different.
you're concerns of the deer population in nw ct are likely valid, I have no first hand experience in that area. This conversation pertains to two towns that I do hunt.
Off the top of my head I can't think of a single place in redding where you can purchase a license and go hunt, without obtaining a permit or winning a lottery to do so. Or gain access from a private land owner.
This entire discussion about the declining deer numbers in redding is because of a small group of hunters who hunt private or town land that have managed these properties to suit their hunting agendas over the past several years. In recent years the residents in this town have gotten fed up with having too many deer, and subsequently that has ultimately led to actions being taken to reduce the deer population. Such as opening up watershed property to bowhunting with a permit, and an increase in residents willing to allow bowhunters on their property to reduce the deer population. And of course white buffalo.
I will still be hunting redding and newtown this fall because I know there is way more than 7 dpsm.
how MANY more dpsm and is it across the entire town or just the area(s) you hunt?
You criticize others who have DATA and then make blanket statements based upon your trail cams or the particular spot(s) you hunt. That's just not logical.
Without a doubt there are POCKETS of deer throughout the state, private land and state land included. That doesn't mean what you find should be considered the average, nor does it mean what I find should be considered the average. The FLIR provided the count for those areas in Redding, Newtown, etc. That's what I would consider factual. The rest is all assumption, opinion, or just BS.
The data in question is from a privately funded flir survey, paid for by people with an agenda.
So the publically funded surveys supported by the folks with a direct monetary interest in killing deer for profit aren't agenda driven?
Ben wasn't talking about his hunting in MA, but his experiences in FF Cty CT. My comments were directed at the FF comments only.
I don't think Ben needs any defense for hunting in FF cty, I think it's fine he does, it's just not for me.
I just don't understand ignoring an FLIR and substituting anecdotal information as described by the CAES Dr Williams in it's place and saying that's the way to determine the deer herd count for the entire FF county, or at the very least Redding.
I hunt in mass @ 6-10 dpsm and you can go weeks with out seeing deer and these are places where you can actively move around and adjust/scout to deer sign patterns.
That's called eradication, not reduction. They don't want to see ANY deer...slippery slope.
Where I work I call it management by fact. MBF!
When you get down to it everyone on this thread has an agenda. The one's who haven't hidden theirs have made it plain that theirs is sound wildllife management. For having the balls to publicly own their agenda they've been labeled "dosh nozzles" and told they "whine like girls". That really helps stimulate a productive dialogue.
It hasn't escaped my notice that the loudest naysayers against the privately funded FLIR results (excepting of course Scott Williams) are hunters from MA. To those individuals I say this; it's time to come out and state your agenda and own it. Whether it's right or wrong is purely opinion but standing behind a belief should always be respected, regardless of anyone's personal feelings on the subject. You've made very clear what your dog in this fight is; unlimited doe tags and the ability to stack deer like cordwood if you have the opportunity and if you damn well please. Fine-if it's legal there is no dispute that you have that right and what I think or what anyone else thinks about it amounts to jack squat. But it's way past time to knock off tossing out accusations about agendas while not putting any skin in the game of your own.
And here's a critical difference in agendas; the ones arguing for the reality of the lower numbers don't gain; they lose-fewer tags if they carry the day. Selflessness tends to not favor the selfless. On the flip side you've got everything to gain from keeping the status quo and apparently will fight tooth and nail any threat to that status quo. This "I've got mine" mentality mirrors selfishness more than anything else.
Again, you have every right to hold and act on these views; just stop dancing around your agenda and post it and then own it.
Sound wildlife management? How do you achieve that with literally zero property that is open to public hunting, in a town where the vast majority don't hunt?
That's how the deer population got out of control to begin with in my opinion.
What's my agenda? Clearly I enjoy shooting lots of deer. That's obvious. And I am not a proponent for reducing or changing the current tag limits. My agenda here is sharing how I feel about this subject, based on my experiences and first hand knowledge. You may not take what I say as facts, my previous season kill reports, the deer I've seen on trail cameras, or from the treestand, or driving through town, or dead on the side of the road. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm crazy for not taking this flir report as gospel like many of you are. It's my opinion and you don't have to like it or agree with me.
First of all, thank you for taking the time to respond. Second, I really wish you'd lose that chip you seem to have on your shoulder. If you can point to a single post of mine where I've questioned what you see on a camera, on a property, on the side of the road, anywhere, please point me to that post.
If you can point to any time I've hinted that you're crazy for questioning the FLIR, same question-please point out that post I made.
The fact is I've posted on multiple occasions that I've never questioned the raw numbers the CT DEEP has reported on their transect surveys, only the misapplication of projecting those numbers out for entire towns when they are only a fraction of those towns. That's simply not sound practice and should not be employed to then make wildlife management decisions.
One point I think you and others seem to struggle grasping; you keep equating a population of deer within a segment of a town with an absolute deer density.
If anyone speaks of dpsm in Redding they are speaking to the average number of deer per square mile for each square mile of the 31.5 square miles that make up the entire town of Redding.
If you accept the FLIR count of 234 deer for the entire town of Redding it does not mean that you do not have 40 of those 234 on the 10 acres you hunt. For the sake of an easier example let's say you have access to a total of 1 square mile and it's got those 40 deer. On that 1 square mile you have a population of 40 deer and a density of 40 dpsm.
Here is where you are in error when you insist that it is absolutely impossible for there to be a 7 dpsm for all of Redding.
What you know as a fact (and to keep it simple we'll say you have a 1 square mile hunting property) is only what is on that 1 square mile. The other 30.5 square miles is an open question. Absent a firsthand knowledge of those 30.5 acres you cannot state as fact how many or how few deer they hold. If all you've got is another 194 deer on those remaining 30.5 square miles than guess what; you've got a townwide density of 7 dpsm-period.
As many have stated on this thread given available cover, forage and lack of predation preferred areas (preserves) will exist throughout FF county. If you're fortunate enough to have access to such hunting acreage a)consider yourself extremely blessed and b)do not assume what you have represents every other available acre in Redding.
Regarding sound wildlife management; this is where in all honesty I really get the sense you're letting that chip on your shoulder get in the way of seeing anyone else's point.
Sound wildlife management is a statewide necessity; please stop reading into that statement that it only applies to Redding or just to FF County. It applies universally to every huntable acre in CT and should apply to every huntable acre in any state in the US.
If we have a flawed method of season and bag limits that impacts every huntable acre in every state that practice is occurring in. I would think more than anyone, someone who hunts for subsistence would be the most vocal person demanding a sound method to make the best management decisions possible.
If it does turn out that the overall numbers are as low as the FLIR suggests than at some point there is going to be an impact on everyone; it is as inevitable as it is unavoidable.
I would rather be proactive in that discussion than be reactive and have to accept whatever is left. When you get to the point where the horse is out of the barn it's a bit late to be bolting the barn door.
My apologies for the chip on the shoulder, bitterness that may have been unintentionally misdirected at you. Certain things that have been posted previously have put me on the defensive. Like when I post how many deer I shot, with a screen shot of confirmation numbers and I suddenly get accused of basically poaching because someone has a picture of the log book at redding ridge and doesn't understand the way that data is logged. As a sportsman who plays by the rules, I find that very offensive.
I find it very interesting that when you speak of sound wildlife management you mentioned every huntable acre. Now does that mean huntable because it has deer, or huntable because it has access? I am all for sound wildlife management practices, but certain factors need to be taken into account. What works in zones 11 or 12 likely does not make sense in northern ct. Different deer densities, habitat, hunting pressure and access to huntable land.
No problem; it would be unfair not to mention that too much of the time on internet forums the discussion gets buried under personal attacks. This is a great shame as this is a great example of the kinds of discussions we've got to have.
When I speak of huntable acreage it has to have access; whether that's permit-required (for example by Northeast Utilities for Skiff Mountain in the NW), private land consent or any state-mandated permission (for example the shotgun season lottery).
You can have acreage that contains deer but if it's privately held (whether a residence, water company, whatever) and the landowner(s) won't give permission it's not huntable acreage. This became a problem with some of the Water Company properties, such as Bridgeport Hydraulic around Easton, CT for example. They opened up the properties but the on-the-ground reality seems to be they over-compensated and the numbers of deer have come way down.
I agree with you that all zones are not created equal; in the NW where Bob and I hunt a lot we have a growing population of black bears and a ton of small predators such as bobcats and fisher cats and they have definitely impacted the deer herd. No question there isn't a "one size fits all" strategy.
The one thing though that I think we need consistency on is our herd number estimation method. We've absolutely got to get that right, or at least as reliable as possible.
Bob and I have talked about lowering tag numbers or limiting harvest to bucks only as is being done in Zone 4a for example. In areas when low numbers are confirmed the first thing we need to do is protect the does. I realize this won't play well in FF County with property owners who remember $50K in ornamental shrubbery getting vaporized. That's a difficult path to navigate; how do we keep the landowners happy and how do we keep the hunters happy.
What I hope comes out of all of this is that we all agree we need to be able to count on the numbers we get and we need to know if/when adjustments need to be made they will be. And those adjustments can, and should be made either way as the numbers dictate.
Thanks for the response.
and federal money comes from where? The sky? It comes from you and me. The government does NOT make it's own money, they take it from us. If you're not Doc Williams you're sure sounding more and more like him. Either that, or you're Gov Malloy :)
Got me on that one. Just remember that the debt theyre creating belongs to us. Printing money is just creating paper
you're right, the Malloy comment was a low blow and I apologize for that.
Got me on that one. Just remember that the debt theyre creating belongs to us. Printing money is just creating paper
Pass on as many does as you can and have fun!
Do a little research on the meat industry and tell me that's what you want to feed your family. I never claimed it was cheaper, but I can tell you it's by far healthier.
As far as my hunting abilitys, I've done plenty of big woods, low deer density hunting, and I've also done plenty of suburban hunting. Both have their own unique challenges.
wildlife has it's own problems with consumption, like chronic wasting disease and high levels of PCB or lead. I don't worry about eating either meat because I think you'd need to eat a truck load every day to have any problems, so I say eat on.
BTW - I think the deer are free. Why? Because for me hunting is about the hunt, not the kill. So coming home with a deer is kind of like finding a $100 bill on the ground. The cost for the equipment, gas, etc was spent on the hunt, not the deer.
