thank you for the article. I have to agree that I don't know anyone who got into hunting for the reason of game management. Nor do I know of anyone who actively hunts today for that reason. Everyone I've ever spoken with said they hunt because they love the outdoors, the challenge, the solitude, experiencing nature, sharing the experience, and so on.
The article reminded me of the 60's, when the hippie generation was into the community-centric mind set, although it was definitely for other reasons than hunting.
I think the spirit of living off the land and getting away from processed food is what people see as a better alternative today, and hunting fits that mold even though it involves the taking of a life.
To be honest, if someone were to ask me today, "Why do you hunt?" I would have to say the same things I've said for years. I don't know! I just know there's something inside me that draws me to the woods, to enjoy nature, to be part of the cycle of life and death, and to take control of my own destiny to provide food. It's the challenge that my ancestors faced and it's the challenge that I choose, but it's something I can't explain.
That's a home run BBB!
It's in my blood. That's my short answer.
When I was growing up it was a way of life. I was my grandpa's retriever from about age 6 to 10. Then I was grandma's retriever because after about 15-20 shots missing the ducks with her 20g she would swear at her shotgun cuz it wasn't shooting right. She would quit hunting and give me her shotgun. After about 10 shots and 6-8 ducks down, she would take it from me and start hunting again. At 12 when my dad died, I was allowed to use his 12g. It was punishment at first and I used to get a headache after about 10 shots.
That was repeated 2-3 times a week during the duck season with reloading sessions in between. If you take hunting away from me, you might as well just shoot me in the head.
I find people more and more accepting of hunting due to the PAELO / Organic diets....
I have turned many negative opinions around once I say to them do you eat Organic.....Well nothing is more organic than an animal you harvested and put on the table.....They do an about face and then wanna try it
I’ve basically got two answers to that one… Most people are kind of surprised to find out that I’m a hunter – guess I don’t match to whatever their preconceived notion of a “hunter” ought to look like – and for them I usually have a 3-word explanation: Free Range Organic. Other option is to simply say that my family prefers venison to any other animal protein.
And I generally add that I tan the hides and do various (and usually anachronistic) crafty-things with hides, hooves, antlers, tendons, etc. I don’t pretend to make as complete use of the animal as people might have 250 (or 2500) years ago, but once people learn that it’s not just about killing, they become noticeably more comfortable with the idea.
They also tend to appreciate the idea of bowhunting… If they ask me if that’s hard, I just say “Not really – I just let them get too close to miss” or I’ll say something about how I only get the really dumb ones anyway…
A lot of people seem to assume that we do this to prove how Manly we are, so the more low-key I am about it, the more their attitudes seem to change.
But all the attitude shift in the world (regarding hunting itself) won’t help the situation… What we REALLY need around here is people to become more accepting in their attitudes towards hunting IN THEIR OWN BACK YARDS…
I like your answer "Free Range Organic" as it puts hunting in a more politically correct position in people's minds. However, is it why I really hunt? Not really,.....but that can be our little secret.
If deer weren't made of venison, I wouldn't hunt them. Meat is my primary motivation.
what if they were made of chocolate? Or beer? Or wine?
They don't sell free range whitetail deer.
You know about "Locavores" - right? People who try to reduce the amount of transportation required to get food onto their plates. Hunting helps reduce your Carbon Footprint. (Twofer!!)
Or you can talk about taking Personal Responsibility for the meat that you eat. I love it when people tell me that hunting is "cruel"... I just look 'em in the eye and tell them in a friendly, but "this-subject-is-not-open-to-discussion" kind of a way: "You eat meat." Not quite an accusation, just a friendly reality check.
They've got NOWHERE to go with that. Are they going to tell you that the meat THEY eat isn't actually DEAD???
Or then there's "Mindfulness" - very popular these days. "Hunting my own meat keeps me Mindful of where meat actually comes from."
Or one of my favorites... "But deer are so graceful/beautiful/whatever.. ". Oh. So you mean it's OK to kill an animal so long as it's not slender and attractive? I guess some animals really ARE more equal than others...
It's actually really enjoyable to have somebody get all righteous and in my face about how awful hunting is and then watch as it dawns on them that we hunters are the ones holding the moral high ground... We are the ones who know EXACTLY what an animal goes through to become our food, and we do not run from that responsibility. They may TALK about the environment, but we are the ones with skin in the game. If THEY pollute, it goes down the drain. If WE pollute, then WE have to EAT IT. (Makes you think twice about eating one o' those golf course deer, doesn't it?)
Anyway... Getting long here.... But the public attitude towards hunting can only be changed one conversation at a time, and you never know when it'll be your turn to have one of 'em...
When it is.... Make the most of it!
When I was a bit younger I would gladly engage people in the hunting argument, now I just tell them that it's not for everyone, only those of us who can take complete responsibility for taking an animals life to put food on the table. Now I have to remember to add "Free Range Organic" food on the table.
I hope people are realizing why I posted this. It is clear that the public can justify hunting and not only accept it, but also encourage it in terms of mitigating environmental and agricultural damage, a local, free-range source of protein, and for managing overabundant wildlife. If wildlife are held in the public trust by DEEP, wouldn't it make sense that we as hunters would cater to those public attitudes and reinforce them primarily amongst the non-hunting public? Whether or not you agree with the study in Redding and what happened on 2 square miles there, ask yourself what you think the public perception of hunters and hunting was before the project and what it was after the project. Did hunters come out in a negative or positive light? Talk to some of the homeowners we worked with. It's pretty telling, they were very impressed with how professional our subcontractor was and not so much with the hunters who were harassing them, the landowners, and town and state officials. Additionally, hunters targeting other hunters with their message on forums like this is simply preaching to the choir. It's the non-hunting public we need to be targeting with good vibes about what hunters can provide them, and is precisely what I have been saying all along.
Also, to suggest that DEEP is letting us hunters down by doing nothing to encourage deer populations is ludicrous. And to suggest that DEEP reduce tag allotment is equally absurd. Hunting alone cannot get densities below 40 deer/square mile. That has been proven. To attack survey methodology and claim state officials are fabricating data is just not the right tactic because it's just not correct. Raw aerial data in Redding and elsewhere in Fairfield County are showing on the order of 30 deer/square mile without correction. We are flattered you think we are capable of counting 100% of deer from the air, but we know it is just not possible. Even so, DEEP has said 20 deer/square mile is optimal for hunters and the non-hunting public alike and we are likely at densities more than double that. So to suggest DEEP is letting us down by not encouraging more deer is just crazy. There are plenty out there now, just unequally distributed between public and private lands.
I summarized the locations of the deer we surveyed from the air in Redding over the past 3 years on the 4 flights we did. 80% of the deer were on private land (the vast majority of which is not hunted; residential, Land Trust, Highstead, Redding Country Club) and the other 20% were on huntable lands (Centennial, Town, Aquarion, State). With that many deer with a distribution like that, don't expect DEEP to adjust tag allotment any time soon. It's time we hunters dealt with reality, instead of fiction. Fiction is just not fooling anyone, makes hunters look foolish, and will not move hunting forward, only backward. Accept the reality and help to move hunting forward in this modern society.
For years several hunters have complained about the NW corner deer herd decline, and only now is the DEEP doing something about it. This is state land where you don't need landowner permission to gain access to hunt, and in my opinion is a more pure form of hunting and is not the same as setting your stand in the fort of the playscape as is the case in FF county.
How can you expect the hunting community to trust the state in the SW corner when for years we've watched them mis-manage the herd other parts of the state?
I agree that the SW corner is a unique scenario. Landowners control the land for hunting, and their desire to have fewer deer is dictating what happens with the herd. But ask yourself why some hunters have migrated to the SW corner to hunt? Could it because the state land in CT no longer provides the deer they are in search of? Are they concerned that yet another part of the state will follow the same path as state land?
I don't think we'll EVER see both sides happy in the SW corner. Landowners won't be happy until all the deer are gone and hunters won't be happy until they have plenty of deer.
Scott Williams still functioning on," half a brain and one working eye. "
More often than not I've found it to be the case that those who view the world through a "black or white" prism have a difficult time processing the views of those who employ a broader use of the color spectrum in forming their world views.
For example, why assume that Rob's hunting experience is limited to the suburban setting? For all the number of times he's posted about what and how he hunts in CA his posting about FF county to me amounts to a mature hunter who while acknowledging a reality about what motivates him to hunt is also pragmatic enough to know that you can keep your feet grounded in the present while keeping your eyes trained on what tomorrow may bring.
I hope people are realizing why I posted this. It is clear that the public can justify hunting and not only accept it
I'm sure the interpretations as to your motivation would make an interesting pie chart; in any event the 10/80/10 fractionation of the public has been common knowledge for at least as long as the Bowsite has been in existence, if not longer. I'm sure most, if not all here recognize those numbers; 10% actively hunt, 10% actively oppose hunting and the remaining 80% while not hunting recognize the role of hunting plays or are tolerant of it to varying degrees.
Can the 80% be influenced one way or the other? I doubt any favorable actions would motivate an appreciable number to pick up a bow but I'd certainly concede a negative perception would be likely to push some towards the less desirable (from our perspective) 10%ers. I think it's dangerously naive to suggest that 80% would wholeheartedly embrace hunting though; the more likely reality is that they become pragmatically tolerant of it as a necessary evil up to such time as they perceive that tolerance is no longer necessary. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
ask yourself what you think the public perception of hunters and hunting was before the project and what it was after the project.
Surveying a fraction of a population will only yield meaningful data for that population. Some here may recall at least one landowner with a negative opinion of the study, it's likely given reports of withdrawn consent there might be a few more.
Survey the entire population and I'm willing to wager you'll come pretty close, if not on the money to the 10/80/10 breakdown.
Also, to suggest that DEEP is letting us hunters down by doing nothing to encourage deer populations is ludicrous.
See Bob's response above and consider the musings of Santayana; "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
To attack survey methodology and claim state officials are fabricating data is just not the right tactic because it's just not correct.
Au contraire; you cannot extrapolate a population from a fractional sample when that sample does not assume an equal, spatial distribution. You do not maintain accuracy through misapplication of a testing methodology, however valid that methodology may be when properly applied.
It's time we hunters dealt with reality, instead of fiction.
I couldn't agree more. May I take that statement as an acknowledgement that you plan to start?
Fiction is just not fooling anyone, makes hunters look foolish, and will not move hunting forward, only backward.
"The emperor has magnificent clothes! The emperor has magnificent clothes!"
Yes, you are correct. Didn't work then, doesn't work now.
Accept the reality and help to move hunting forward in this modern society.
Translation; accept the status quo, don't challenge dogma and trust, don't verify.
History has shown less than favorable outcomes to those who adopted that approach.
Santayana; a pretty smart cookie.....I wonder what he thought of pie?.....
You can't say the decline in these areas was due to predation, cars, winter die off, etc because all these things happen in all parts of the state in varying degrees. More cars strikes in the SW corner, more predation in the NW corner for example.
So while the NW corner was declining in the 80's-90's the SW corner had plenty of the deer. Why? Could it be that the hunting pressure in the NW corner caused the decline? The preliminary results released by the state suggests predation is NOT a huge impact on the herd in the NW corner, but they say nothing about the number of deer killed in years past by hunters.
Challenging the accepted status quo that hunting will benefit long term through acceptance of being a tool for the benefit of the public/private sector is not popular and may result in some uncomfortable outcomes in the short term.
Contrary to Doc, I do believe that challenge this we must for the health of hunting. Acceptance of this reality is not the way.
the problem I have it (just my viewpoint) is it's not hunting. The state should come up with another category, like the "Deer Elimination Excellence Program". Create another revenue stream with separate permits and tests you need to take to be able to shoot a bow off a swingset.
This is NOT a knock against the guys that do this type of hunting, it's just me trying to separate hunting on state land or other big tracts of open land from that done by sitting in little Jimmy's swingset. If you call it hunting, then people will think all hunting is done this way, just like when the news reports "2 hunters" were caught shooting deer at night. Those are poachers, not hunters, please get it right!
I actually agree with the Doc on this point. If the guys that want to hunt the backyards make themselves available to eliminate the deer, then both sides benefit. The landowner gets rid of the deer and the hunter takes home the meat. But make sure you have several houses lined up, because in a few years you'll be looking for another swingset to put up your stand, because the deer will be gone.
If we buy into this argument we place the future of hunting in the hands of those who wield it and us as tools.
When tools become obsolete they get tossed in the garbage. Making a hunting a tool creates a risk of obsolescence, this a risk we can ill afford.
Sustainability depends on arguments that hunting benefits hunters, not that hunting is a tool that benefits non hunters. Non hunters need to see how hunting benefits us, not how it benefits them.
this is why I said create a different category in the game book and provide a list to homeowners of available DEEP guys "Deer Elimination Excellence Program" (get it?)
This way it's not hunting, we're not tools, we don't get eliminated, just the DEEP guys get eliminated (sounds good already, I know!) and everyone is happy.
IF the DEEP would do this, it would show cooperation with the homeowners to reduce the deer herd, the cooperation of the hunting community to assist them at no charge (better than WB did for them) and those that choose this type of hunt have the ability to access private land.
They already have that to a certain extent with crop damage permits.
If they took that program a step farther I would be fine with it, but it would need to have no relation to hunting at all.
In other words the rules that govern hunters wouldn't apply. No closed seasons, no implement restrictions, no or radically different bag limits, etc. It would have to be pure pest elimination program entirely separate from hunting and not hunting program whose goal was pest elimination.
In other words it has to be crystal clear to any reasonable person looking at the program that it is not hunting.
Right. How I interpret this statement is that hunters are selfish and non-hunters need to be unselfish, even though they outnumber us 10 -1. People are inherently selfish and are out to do whatever suits their needs. So why in an urban state like CT, where non-hunters far, far outweigh the number of hunters would you ever come up with a statement like that? This is exactly the problem. Don't work against the non-hunting public that can wipe out all hunting in CT, work with them. It is us hunters that have everything to lose, not them. I'm just asking CT hunters to think forward and long term. Attempting to sway 80% of the public to agree with 10% of the public is like shoveling sand against the tide.
I bowhunt, therefore I am.
The same way that someone won't be able to convince me to stop BowHunting, is the same way I won't be able to sway them to climb a tree with me.
I like you on the site because it keeps it interesting. I often wonder who coached you to think the way you do. One would think that a biologist wouldn't have a vested interest in killing all the deer in CT just to appease a certain suburban population.
Mike in CT's Link
Before you castigate with a broad brush you might want to consider researching the topic first.
Or perhaps you speak from a more personal perspective and project?
As far as working with the non-hunting public; there are a number of ways that can be accomplished that do not involve the metaphorical equivalent of selling your soul to the devil.
The 80% of the public that is neither pro nor con regarding hunting are not a newcomer to the dance; if anything the needle on that demographic began to shift towards a more favorable view as the anti-hunting rhetoric (not to mention tactics) became more strident and unhinged over the years.
How hunters conducted themselves in a public setting offer a stark contrast to the caricatures the antis attempted to cast all hunters as being. When the caricature becomes obvious as to intent the purveyor loses credibility.
When someone insists on hanging themselves, by all means continue to supply them with plenty of rope.
One last little bit of philosophy; people may fear or mistrust that which they do not understand. To Toonces point, explaining why you hunt can only foster a better understanding. The first mistake is to presume that the hunting lifestyle needs defending; far too much time and effort has already been invested in responding to that false premise.
We have been round and round on this. We have to agree to disagree.
Your opinion that folks are inherently selfish cuts both ways. If non hunters are selfish, what is going to happen when hunting is not the most efficient means to their end. We will be discarded like other inefficient processes or services.
My assumption and hope is actually the opposite. I assume non hunters are not selfish. Therefore the most effective way to preserve hunting for the long term is to encourage their empathy for us. Your way is to encourage their selfishness.
As long as their selfish goals is to use us to kill deer, we can coexist by essentially using each other.
I don't want to use them. I don't want them to use us. I want them to understand hunting and support hunting beyond the benefits of what hunting can provide for them. I want them to empathize and understand the benefits that hunting provides us. That is what will protect hunting long term. Using each other won't.
Do you want that? I know I don't. Clearly the most outspoken guys on this site want that to happen. And if other guys follow their strategy, it will.
You propose a false equivalency; it does not follow that because you do not want to sway you must by extension alienate. Positing false premises seems to be a strong suit of yours.
Irony seems to be another; you seem to have no inhibitions about alienating anyone with ideas contrary to your own; moreover you seem especially predisposed to be as condescending as possible when you respond to those legitimate concerns.
But what's happening now is hunters are unwilling or unable to meet that need and when confronted with that, they claim state officials are lying to suit some phantom agenda.
Now you have me wondering if I should add "drama queen" to your listing of skills. First, you presume that hunters should be lining up to meet your preconceived notions as to what the public wants or needs and seem to also wish to ascribe less than honorable motivations when they do not immediately march in lock-step to your drumbeat.
Second, claiming a misuse of a method is not lying; exaggeration might be another trait I need to properly credit you with.
It has been proven too many times in too many situations that when the public want reduced deer densities, that hunting alone cannot get it done.
Just as it has been proven that the reduction of deer in non-insular settings doesn't reduce incidence of Lyme disease. Funny how that reality didn't discourage you from wasting taxpayer dollars to prove that 2 and 2 is 4 or that the earth is round. Sauce for the goose.
Keep failing to meet the desires of the public, and the public will pass hunting over and ultimately ban hunting.
"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"
Good grief, a drama queen indeed....
Because as you see here, the public agrees with hunting for population management, but if hunting continues to fail to manage populations, the public will view it as merely killing animals and will lobby to end hunting as it has been shown time and time again to be ineffective.
You're coming dangerously close to the all-time record for false memes....
80% of the public has no interest in banning hunting Chicken Little.
Clearly the most outspoken guys on this site want that to happen.
A nice, baseless ad hominem for the "cherry on top". I'm sure somewhere there's a psychiatrist who could make a career out of your overwhelming need to project beliefs onto others.
I'll say this for you Scott; you sure as heck aren't dull.....
"But what's happening now is hunters are unwilling or unable to meet that need"
I think hunters are killing too many deer, being too efficient. Deer densities are at their lowest levels in years...and are still falling with no end in sight. DEEP won't even acknowlede lowering the tag allotments statewide.
Perhaps hunters are just now figuring out that if they want to sustain hunting, there has to be a population of deer to hunt.....because I'm sure you've seen studies that show that once it takes above a certain number of man-hours in the woods to harvest a deer.....interest falls off.
Personally, I think it's past time for the CT DEEP to re-evaluate your role as their defacto spokesman.
Keep killing all the mommas and sooner or later you won't have much to kill. The habitat supports the deer here in CT.
Surprised your colleague even hunts. I can bet he knows that there is a Maine bruiser if he sticks it out though. That's the only reason to put up with the misery in Maine.
Can't we all just get along and talk about new gear everyone bought for the upcoming season?
I take 1-2 deer each year. That's all I want, all I need. Don't need to keep knocking on doors to kill unlimited does and earn a buck tag or whatever. I don't hunt zone 11 or 12. And I have no idea why anyone would want or need to kill more than a few deer each year in CT.
But I can say that in the past I used to have multiple opportunities and passed deer....now, I'm fortunate to get one in range to kill. And I hunt several state land spots always looking for a hotter spot. I just want the state to take a look at improving the quality of animals and the quality of the hunt.
And as far as tradition, that you feel doesn't exist, how the hell do you think a lot of us got into hunting? I'll tell ya...by following our dads into the woods a long time ago. And how do you think the next generation continues that tradition? By taking their sons and daughters into the woods. Tradition runs a lot deeper than you think.
Now, what kind of broadheads do you shoot and how do you like them?
you present a no win situation for the CT hunter.
You propose that we should work with the landowners in southern CT to reduce the deer herd to the same level as say MA or ME, where if you see a deer it's a good year. No WIN!!
Or you say if we don't work with the landowner then hunting will be replaced by other means in those area, like WB and the herd once again will be reduced to MA or ME levels. No WIN!!
I also wonder when the state adopted the current approach that deer are bad and need to be reduced far below the carrying capacity of the habitat?
When I was young the articles I read said deer were a resource and no one had legal right to them (wards of the state). So landowners seeking to remove deer had to work within the states's hunting regulations and not kill them off by using WB because their shrubs were being eaten.
The goal was to optimize this resource to the carrying capacity of the habitat and increase hunter participation and therefore revenue.
If Dr Williams' words represent the future of our sport it's doomed. It will no longer be "hunting" in CT, it will be hired sharpshooting. You won't have a choice as to what to harvest, everything must be shot. There will be no challenge to out wit the old buck, as they will be killed off as button bucks.
If hunting ever comes to the point where I'm TOLD that I need to kill MOST of the deer I see, I will quit and take up bird watching.
Sad! Very sad!
Since when does the non-hunting community "CONTROL" the deer herd decision process? I understand the large majority of people in CT don't hunt, but I also know the large majority of people in CT don't want most of the deer killed. Aren't we talking about the few affluent, political connected rich in SW CT that own the big houses and fancy cars?
You know, the people that pay tens of thousands of dollars on shrubs and have a problem when deer eat them. Or their Lexus hits a deer while they talk on their cellphones. These are the poeple we want the hunters to work with, right?
To me, this is akin to having property owners at the shore decide how many, what kind and the size of the fish you can catch. Sounds stupid doesn't it!?
When did the DEEP become the homeowner's association? When did we stop using carrying capacity as the key to herd size?
My new thread will be "What kind of binos to use for bird watching?"
LMAO I'll give you a head start. That's gonna take you a while.
You really do need to write up a scorecard so that you can keep your story straight. I'm sure everyone on this thread can recount at least two dozen instances where you've defended the need for sharpshooting by claiming that hunting can't get deer densitities down to where the public (at least in FF County) wants them.
If anyone's looking for kicks and grins go back over all the Redding threads and you'll confirm what I've just posted-and then some.
I'm surprised you haven't developed lockjaw from talking out of both sides of your mouth so frequently.
FYI Scott; FF County isn't all of CT. Take up trip up to the NW or NE corners and check in with all the Apple Orchard owners, farmers, nursery owners and tree farm owners who have had a great working relationship with hunters going back to our grandparent's day.
Bristol Fish & Game; est 1923 Rockville Fish & Game; est 1925 Torrington Fish & Game; est 1925 NW CT Sportsmen's Assocation; est 1927 Pachaug Outdoor Club; est 1934 Manchester Sportsmen's Association; est 1935
Half-a-dozen Rod & Gun (hunting) clubs with 80 years and counting; I hope you realize those clubs were started by people with a hunting tradition.
Yeah, you've got your finger on the pulse of the hunting community......
the one's hunting up a good watering hole maybe.
CTCrow's Link
let's go and play in your I hate sunday hunters thread. We already hi-jacked this one long enough.
LOL. Nice looking bow - good-lookin' kid!
Just keep him on the Righteous Path, eh?
Seems to me that what the non-hunting public down in LFFC needs to come to grips with is the dirt-simple fact that hunting can only keep the deer populations in check if enough hunters have access to where the deer ARE.
And I don't think it's AT ALL necessary to allow stuff like baiting in order to make it happen.
Trouble is, everybody IS basically pretty selfish.
If you're a landowner with deer eating your shrubs, you might selfishly want the deer eradicated, regardless of density (just from your own economic perspective), or you might selfishly want to preserve your "safety" by wanting the deer gone but not being willing to allow any of them to leave via YOUR back yard.
And if you're a hunter, of course you want (selfishly) to be able to take a certain number of deer per year (whatever that number might be) - again, we're talking regardless of the density.
We tend to want what we want.
But think about it this way... If you spend hundreds of dollars per year filling feeders and you feel as though the herd has been reduced beyond what it should be... How do you think the guy next door feels when he's hunting WITHOUT a pile of corn to help with the distribution? How does the NEXT guy over feel, sitting there on public land when the A-season hunter density is 1 gunb for every 20 acres? (That works out to a HUNTER density of 32/sq mi, BTW...). So you have to ask yourself: Is it better for all concerned if more deer are taken by fewer hunters?
JMO, the fewer hunters who succeed each year, the fewer tags the DEEP will sell. And the more people drop out, the fewer are around to extend the tradition. The fewer around to care, to lobby, to vote, to teach, to educate the general public...
I guess I don;t see it as a real positive...
And GF, A bow site member made my son's bow and one for me as well as a gift. Will treasure it always.
although I never have and never will hunt backyards I can find no fault in your statements. Your first goal is getting permission to hunt the private parcels. Your reasons for hunting have nothing to do with how you explain it to the land owner to obtain the permission,... I see that as education and reasoning. Kind of like a 16 yr old with a new drivers license. He'll tell you he can run errands for you, pick up the younger kids, etc, but the real reason why he wants to drive is it's fun and he looks cool doing it. I say carry on.
by your comments I would conclude that you're not selfish when it comes to taking deer. Am I right? I would also be in that club, and I think you might be surprised that there are quite a few more out there like us.
When I was younger all I thought about was getting my deer, but I NEVER took more than one per year regardless of how many tags were allowed in the various seasons. I took what I could eat, nothing more.
It's funny, when I stopped trying so hard to walk out of the woods with a deer I started enjoying the total experience of hunting more. And when I stopped shooting the first small buck or doe I saw, I also started seeing bigger bucks that got me more excited to be out there. The fewer deer I shot, the more deer I would see in succeeding years.
It can be done, it just takes patience and the knowledge that you're doing the right thing for next year and the years to come.
I'm really no different from anyone else- given a choice between shooting as many deer as a family of four can eat OR going a full season (or two) without so much as a good look at a deer, I'll take the full freezer.
I just think we're all much better off when the herd is managed to a level where about one deer a year - and ABSOLUTELY just one buck - is all that anyone can reasonably expect.
I learned most of what I know about hunting whitetails up in MN, where even in the "deer rich" areas, there is still an actual FOREST in which to hunt them. Thick stuff, where you have to be pretty skilled to even SEE a deer at 30 yards when you're down on the ground. Down here, it looks like someone has mowed in between all of the mature trees, and it's no big trick to spot a deer well over 100 yards out, if you know what you're doing.
It ain't healthy and it ain't natural to have the deer so thick and the forest so thin. So for now, I have trouble (assuming LFFC) convincing myself that I should ever let a doe walk. I still do, from time to time, of course, but usually it's against my better judgement.
On the other hand, I hunted up north a couple of seasons a few years back, and the only things that kept me from shooting a doe were safety concerns and rapidly- fading daylight. In two years I had exactly 1 shot opportunity. Kind of a shift from hunting just outside of Ridgefield, where I got used to seeing several deer every single time out, and the most common reason I had for passing up a shot was the fact that I couldn't even get out to my stand without bumping a couple and frankly, I just felt like an idiot having spent more time changing into all of my scent-free clothing than it took to locate and kill a deer!
