Did Kilpatrick ruin it?????
Connecticut
Just want guys thoughts and opinions on our present situation in CT with our deer herd. I have hunted for quite a few years and was lucky enough to experience the tail end of this state when it was great (late 90's). I think our numbers have gone drastically down hill especially the mature buck numbers. Right now there are 2 zones that are closed to Sunday hunting that 10-15 years ago were considered the Mecca of deer hunting in CT. I really put this in our biologists hands, his failures by him and his team have really cost us some of the best hunting in the N.E. Just curious what others think.
I believe the mid to late 90's deer population in the Southwest part of the state was and is unsustainable. I hunt the zones that are projected under 20/dpsm, 2, 3 & 4a primarily. I've seen the most deer last season than the previous 2 combined. I hunt mostly river bottoms and hardwoods. I would estimate my sighting average per sit at 20% the past 3 seasons. I expect this season with the abundant acorn & nut yield to be far less. As for quality, mature bucks, I can't say there's been many sightings besides on trailcam. My overall take along with my hunting buddies in the northern Connecticut River Valley area, is the deer population is solid as ever. I was surprised to know Zones 2 & 3 were projected under 20 dpsm after a terrific 2014 season.
The DEEP will tell you that there are still too many deer in this state, so don't try to tell them that they're miss-managing the herd. If you were on this site at all last fall/winter you would have heard the party line for months.
I hunt the NW corner, and I have 3 separate areas on state land that I hunt. While I'm happy with my experiences in the woods I do agree that there were more deer in the 70-80's especially. I don't need to see 10 deer each trip out, as long as I see deer or two every other trip I'm happy.
It looks like the total deer harvest has been relatively flat between 1991 and 2014, so I don't know how we can blame DEEP for any percieved deteriotion in the deer hunting over that time (between 10 - 14K killed annually). Hunters have been killing the same numbers of deer for a long time now.
So nothing really has changed between the late nineties and now in total deer killed.
There is noticeably less habitat available because their has been a lot of development over that time, and there has been very little habitat improvement of state lands, so that is definately a factor in my opinion. Also increased predation is definately a factor.
Also I think deer hunters tend be home bodies, meaning we tend to hunt the same areas year after year so fluctuations in small areas are very noticeable to and impactful to us, but we sometimes lack the big picture. Just becausee the patch of ground we have been hunting for 20 years ain't what it used to be, it doesn't mean that a couple of miles down the road it is what it used to be.
I do wish this state would take a more proactive role in habitat improvement. Not sure why they don't.
I wouldn't exactly say deep messed it up.....they got exactly what they wanted....fewer deer. Maybe messed it up for guys that wanted to see 15 deer a day....Early 2000's and prior there phones were ringing off the hook with the general public bitching about deer. Another thing is access back then. There was a lot of large tracks of land in several sw ct towns that were off limits to hunting that have since been opened. When I started hunting ct in the 90's I really did feel like I was the only bow hunter in Fairfield co.....you never saw anyone else hunting anywhere....now there's a lot of guys hunting and like pat also mentioned way more predators. I need never used to see Bobcats I ffc now I see them all the time..... That being said even tho ffc is probably 1/3 dpsm of what it was there is still way more deer than other Newengland states by far
I belive it ...back in the day areas of Wilton Westport and Greenwich were just stupid with deer. Most of southern/western ffc were 60ish atleast
Back in the day ther was a deer behind every tree it'd I didn't see 10 to 20 deer I was passed I started in mid to late 70s only thin was I didn't know how to hunt !still lots of deer compared to Vermont were I hunted then
I think your DEEP is doing pretty good with the deer herd from what I read. Try coming to NY and dealing with these idiots when it comes to bowhunters. Our DEC is so out of touch it is not funny! I do not hunt your state but have many friends who live there and hunt. They all seem to be happy with their deer hunting. Shawn
Been hearing this same line in recent years about population decline from lots of people, I personally don't see it. From what I have seen in 25 years of hunting the same areas year after year in the NW corner, there are more deer now than I can remember. Thats just what I'm seeing, and its a completely different world here than what has been going on in SW CT and other parts, so I cant say for those areas. There are many factors to take into consideration when it comes to seeing or not seeing deer. I usually blame myself for being a lousy hunter when I am not seeing them and not everyone and everything else like I hear others do far too often.
Pat if you don't think that for the 80's through the late 90's that the prime hunting hub in CT was Sharon, Kent, Cornwall areas then I don't know where you were but that is fact!
I never mentioned ffld cty in my post and wasn't referring to it, I know there was a population problem there but I think that is far behind us and the replacement tags have run there course!
Toonces- how accurate do you think the tagging and reporting has been since the state went to those stupid paper tags?
The number of mature bucks is definitely in the decline there is no doubt about that
There isn't a season on Bobcats and Bears? Hmmmm?
HH,
Sharon, Kent and Cornwall are all in Zone 1 and open for hunting on Sunday this year, so deer mecca or not, your initial assertion is not correct.
Also there are three zones closed for Sunday Hunting, not 2. (zones 2, 3 and 4(a))
The new tagging system may have made a difference in reporting, I don't know. Even the paper tags allowed plenty of opportunity for non compliance. Based on what I have seen personally, it hasn't changed much.
In an event the harvest numbers are what we have to go on. If you don't trust the numbers now, you have no reason to trust them more 15 years ago.
I have to weigh in on this topic. I've been hunting the NW corner since 1975. MDC property east of the Colebrook River Lake, Housatonic in several areas but mostly near Wangum Lake and the Blackberry River, and Robbins Swamp.
I would see 12-20 deer while on stand every time out. There were days when I would get multiple shot opportunities. I would hike in the snow in the off season and take movies (not video, but super 8 movies) of deer. I have pictures of deer runs the day after a snow fall that are 18 inches wide and look like cattle walked through the woods in the last 8 hours.
Again, I'm not complaining about the deer numbers today, but either the DEP was wrong about the numbers then, or the DEEP is wrong about the numbers now. This is also reinforced by the fact that the DEEP has been doing a fawn mortality study in the NW corner, just because the numbers are low.
I don't get wrapped in the numbers, it's like listening to politicians running for office. I go based upon what I know by being in the woods, nothing else matters to me.
Very telling read on what is happening in Zone 11 - The movement to destroy the whitetail deer.
Back in the mid 80s and early 90s I would make the hour and a half drive just to hunt the nw corner. HH is right on this one ,That WAS the place to be for high deer numbers and Big Bucks . BBB I also hunted the Blackberry river ,the limestone quarry and the Furnace areas and always saw 10-15 deer every time out. Seems to me sometime in the late 90s the deer numbers started to decline up that way.
I love how certain people on this forum are always complaining about deer hunting in CT. You should consider yourself fortunate to have such generous bag limits as well as a ton of state land hunting areas! Deer harvest numbers have been pretty consistent over the years. Numbers don't lie! I have a great idea, if you think your gettin such a bad shake in CT why not move to Maine and get only one tag! Just sayin! Great point Pat we really need to address the predator problem in CT. That's are real enemy not the DEEP!
Stillhuntin- that is exactly one of the major problems too many tags especially buck tags! This state does NOTHING as far as conservation goes for those of you who have no clue what conservation is here u go
the action of conserving something, in particular. preservation, protection, or restoration of the natural environment, natural ecosystems, vegetation, and wildlife. synonyms: preservation, protection, safeguarding, safekeeping;
I brought this up because I know what we once had here in CT and I'm afraid those days are long behind us! The state doesn't want to conserve the herd but rather eliminate it, now I do realize there were problems in the past with a certain zone but those problems were addressed, ask yourself why the escalated numbers and why still replacement tags and earn a buck. I'm not complaining that the hunting in CT is no good just stating that is was once much better
I fully agree with you "Toonces"....... I'm a native Floridian and I'd take this state over Florida for deer hunting any day of the week!!!
And Toonces I was referring to the Northwest part of the state. The western side of zone 2 is included in that
I understand HH, I am actually a little suprised that the towns you mentioned are not in a no Sunday Hunting zone, I fully expected they would be.
I found your deer Mecca comment interesting. That part of the state and in particular the towns you mentioned are where I first started deer hunting in CT in the early-mid eighties as well as turkey hunting and still do today. I also learned to fly fish on the housatonic catching small mouth. That area will always be special to me, and I personally do agree it was and still is the deer Mecca of CT, despite the low numbers and predators.
I remember the guy that ran the fly shop on the housatonic river at that time had a couple of big mounts hanging in the back of the store and he said they were killed locally in the "hills". It definately made an impression on me as a kid, because those hills still hold a fascination for me.
The northwest is still the best looking country in ct hands down.Its just too expensive to live there.I remember when you could drive up caanon valley road in to mass and shoot your limit of grouse and deer all in 1 afternoon but those days are gone now.We would push the woods between farm fields and see 30 deer in 4 hours every time!I miss those days.
I know its impossible to check or track but im willing to bet atleast 50% or more of the population decline is from predators. back in the day most every adult doe had fawns ...usually twins. from what im seeing its probally down to maybe 1 in 4 that make it through the spring/summer . like I said earlier I never used to see bobcats I now see them constantly ,they are huge pedators of fawns in the spring. that explains why deer population is falling state wide while retaining a overall average hunter harvest. unfortunately to address these issues deep needs bear and bobcat seasons as well as allowing night time predator hunting like a lot of other states. but deep wants the deer numbers low.
Jr I agree a lot of it has to do with predators I also think our buck to dos numbers are so out of whack that some of these does don't get bread but I will agree that we do have a predator issue but I'm not gonna say 50% of it is
I run into a guy on my hikes who's been a part of the DEEP Master Conservacy Program for years and is taking part in the Fawn Mortality Rate Study in the Northwest Corner. He said, as of last year, that there is roughly a 75% mortality rate of fawns born in that section of the state. It was a year ago, but from what I remember the numbers were about 50% of the rate was due to natural predation, the rest accounted for were natural selection type fatalities and unnatural occurrences (farm equipment/road kills).
It's interesting how they've been conducting the study...over the winter they would tranquilize pregnant does and implant a vaginal (can I type that here?!) GPS device. Once the fawn was dropped, the device would activate along with the newborn fawn and they would have about 24 hours to locate the baby deer before it found it's legs. Once located they would then collar the fawn with another GPS device to conduct the study. Many times they'd find the collars in bales of hay come spring time.
Who knows what this study will actually bring. Maybe bear and bobcat seasons and night hunting, or maybe it's all a dog and pony show. Either way based off of those rates of 50% of fawns being taken by predators, I'd say we've got a growing problem on our hands. My biggest worry is coyotes, I'm not personally afraid of them, but they've migrated here from the west...there is not much more east of here for them to go and I can see the population backfilling and exploding even more. Just an uneducated theory of mine. Save a deer, shoot a 'yote.
Hh. You know what's funny is we have a 130 acre piece in ffc and the past few years we have had way more buck pics than does. Granted most are spikes and forkies but we usually have 2 or 3 good ones. So far this year we have 2 in the 125-130" range and several Lil guys . But less does. Our other spots are opposite mostly does....very little fawns and bucks. So I'd guess it's spot to spot. But one variable is way less fawn recruitment which he know isn't cause of hunters This guy came sneaking by me last friday. Would of been a easy shot if we had a season
While speaking to the game warden on Saturday, he said DEEP's probably going to attempt to start a Bear season in CT. but he thinks the public is going to raise a stink and get it shot down. Was encouraging to know that DEEP is at least recognizing there's a growing bear population in CT and he said they're slowly making their way in larger numbers toward the southern part of the state and the shoreline.
Just speaking, he thinks at some point, there will be an incident between a bear and a civilian. Hopefully it doesn't come to that. Some of you guys have been calling for a bear season and predicting it would take a bear attack to finally get one and he thought so too.
On another note....even if the deep didn't implement unlimited tags population would still be down if it's a predator issue. Granted it wouldn't be as low but we would most likely still see the lower fawn recruitment numbers. I've seen several articles recently about the same issues nation wide. Seems alot of states did same thing in the 2000's and they all seem to have a growing predator issue too.
A point to consider when analyzing the "stability" of the harvest numbers over the years; since 1991 we've added the Sept 15th start date, instituted baiting, added numberous large tracts of previously non-hunted lands (Aquarion for example) and expanded the use of crossbows.
We've been lulled into a false sense of security that when have an infinite resource; the reality is we've never had one and over the past 5-7 years that reality is being driven home as we've added natural predation to the mix.
If we learned anything at all from all the debates last fall (think private FLIR surveys) it's that we may be at the point where we're killing the proverbial goose that laid the golden egg.
While we have pockets of good deer numbers (and there are many factors that create these) the stark reality is the overall herd is in decline, and in some areas, that decline is steep.
One last point to ponder for those who are unconvinced the state does some gaming of the numbers; I can find the exact report but the report in question came out last March reporting an average deer density of 29 dpsm. One very large problem, and it is actually in the language of that report-the helicopter flew 10 transects, 650 feet wide. Do the math and you'll arrive at 6,500 feet. A mile is 5,280 feet so you're off by almost 25%.
A friend and I also drove and lasered the other "axis" and found it was approximately 1 1/4 miles. What you now have is a dpsm estimate that's off by 56%; that 29 dpsm is actually closer to 14 dpsm, remarkably close to the numbers Vision Air's survey showed.
I'll repeat this again-those are the state's measurements and they're published as "fact". They're indisputably, undeniably WRONG.
Bang the drum loudly for predator hunting and self-police in the woods. The clock's ticking folks, and if you think otherwise expect to be one of the head-scratchers as to "where have all the deer gone" in a few more years at our current rate.
Toonces, I remember that guy.he did have some beautiful mounts., always did say in the hills when asked . Same as the old couple that ran the diner next door . They had some great fish mounts.
Mike I knew the numbers were wrong but didn't realize that's how they were doing it, good to know. I have been saying the same thing for years as well as you and have been told how wrong I am but I have seen in the past few years some people are coming around.
From the Minutes of the March 9. 2015 meeting of the Fairfield County Deer Management Alliance:
Sean,
Here's another example of why we shouldn't blindly accept the state's numbers; a friend of mine was lucky enought to take a deer on opening day and used the online kill report system.
For a bow kill reported in the first hour of the 2015 season his number was 1501762. The "15" is the 2015 year and the next 5 digits are reserved for the kill number. In a nutshell, according to the state's reporting system in the first hour of the 2015 season there were already 1,762 bow kills.
IN THE FIRST HOUR......
We're good, but I highly doubt we're THAT good.
I would make the educated guess that the state counts the deer killed in Jan. 2015 for the tag system, but not for the overall kill number for the 2015/16 year.
I wonder how much of the lower deer harvest is contributed to less non resident hunters and especially after they increased the fee from 44 to 135? I know a few people who havent hunted CT in a few years myself included. I was lucky enough to take a deer a few years back the last time I hunted CT. My cousin harvested 3 in Redding a few years ago but didnt hunt since fighting Lyme disease. I know this is only a handful but Im wondering in total how many non residents havent hunted CT in a number of years? Just a thought.
It seems hard to judge a deer population as I hunted Union CT back in 1999 if I recall and jumped deer every time I went in the woods and no muddy spot on the trails was void of tracks. Fast forward to a couple years ago when i decided to scout it again I happened to see one deer driving in but few if any tracks on the trails and the runs were not as pronounced as they were in 1999. Are the deer gone or just moved further in the woods? Also, last year I shot a button buck in MA but with three cams going for months I never got a fawn pic on cam but numerous does. I guess the best way to judge fawn recruitment is with the states deer harvest summary. Are the yearling kills close to the same in years past? Alot of variables with deer poulation.
When I called mine in it was in the high"15's"..i figured it was a random number
Kyle,
I spoke with the DEEP and was assured that Jan 2015 take is counted and reported as 2014 statistics. I spoke with Andrew Labonte at length about this.
In addition the Jan 2015 take was something like 273 deer leaving over 1,500 deer supposedly taken in the first hour of opening day.
Something is not adding up.
Mike I went back and checked my jan tag it was 1/28 / 2015 the number was 1500215 maybe the 1 changes season but it still would be around 500 deer in two days the last and the first of the year . Steve
1762 bow kills in the first hour? Givin most BOWHUNTERS even after a slam dunk shot wait atleast 1/2- 1 hour before tracking it's hard to believe these reports to be filed @ first hour. I shot a doe in 20 minutes on opening morning, registering that deer came much later after all else that happens after harvest. It is required to register within 24 hours of kill. Those numbers just don't ad up! Unless your counting your chickens before they hatch! Don't think Id be registering a deer before I put my hands on it
Don't get caught up in a confirmation number, they do not correlate and DEEP never claimed that is how they count harvest. Its just a number through the electronic system. Yes they go in order but would you expect to have a duplicate confirmation number say for spring turkey, archery deer and firearm deer. Doesnt make sense.
Looking back at a post from Fletch on 23Sept. He describes how the fawn mortality study is conducted, where the locate the fawn within 24hrs after birth then collar the fawn with another gps device. I would be curious to know, if any, what percentage of the fawns mortality was due to abandonment after being handled by humans/human presence, and made the fawns more susceptible to predation or death by natural causes in general? not making accusations at all, just curious if that scenario occurs and if so how often??
I have always believed that the crop damage deer that are reported,are also added to the numbers. That would explain why my confirmation number on 9/25/15 is 1502508
Quote Mike in CT: "Here's another example of why we shouldn't blindly accept the state's numbers; a friend of mine was lucky enought to take a deer on opening day and used the online kill report system."
"For a bow kill reported in the first hour of the 2015 season his number was 1501762. The '15' is the 2015 year and the next 5 digits are reserved for the kill number. In a nutshell, according to the state's reporting system in the first hour of the 2015 season there were already 1,762 bow kills. "IN THE FIRST HOUR...... We're good, but I highly doubt we're THAT good Kyle,I spoke with the DEEP and was assured that Jan 2015 take is counted and reported as 2014 statistics. I spoke with Andrew Labonte at length about this.
In addition the Jan 2015 take was something like 273 deer leaving over 1,500 deer supposedly taken in the first hour of opening day.
Something is not adding up" .................................................... ...................................................... ...................................................... ...................................................... ..................................................... ...................................................... ...................................................... ...................................................... ...................................................... ...................................................... ...................................................... ...................................................... ...................................................... ....................................................................................................................................
I just checked deer I reported in Jan 01/23/2014 confirmation was 1400178 so Jan 2014 was reported as 2014 statistics not 2013. At the least, its represented in the confirmation number! If Crop damage deer that are reported are also be added to the numbers, that could make up for those extra deer.
Zack,
What I'm starting to wonder is if the state simply doesn't have the resources to separate out Jan deer from the calendar year and we're double-counting those deer.
As I mentioned I had a lengthy conversation with Andrew Labonte and he was adamant that Jan deer get counted in the prior year, not the current calendar year.
Regarding crop damage; agree these may be getting thrown into the mix and we still have an unresolved issue; the number of deer taken via crop damage permits is only about half of the deer when added to Jan 2015 deer.
Something still doesn't add up.
I agree that this is still largely surmise and not concrete fact. What is concrete fact though is the example of massaging the deer density numbers in the example I gave. You can't report dpsm when your two axes are 1.23 and 1.25 miles. When you do this you're overestimating your numbers by slightly over 50% and that's no way to responsibily manage a resource.
January deer have a 2015 confirmation number because it is reported under the 2015 license. Again don't get caught up in the confirmation number as an actual accurate count for anything. Look at a spring turkey confirmation number, it should be a lower number than an archery deer number reported in the fall, at least mine have been. Deep should be able to use the system to separate everything out and be able to either report in 2014 or 2015. Whether they do that or not i can't tell you. I never saw a different style number for a turkey kill, archery deer kill, gun kill, etc. The system just spits out a number in sequential order when something is reported.
A far as deer density surveys and calculations, Im not beating that dead horse.
Dont forget about checking in fox and coyote as well.
You don't check in anything other than deer or turkey and for deer it is for the seasons indicated on the report (on link select pdf link to read).
No crop damage reporting either according to the instructions and listings.
fyi... I just talked to my friend at the deep heres the scoop. confirmation #'s start jan 1st and is calendar year, but include all deer and turkey kills as well as crop damage kills . the deer harvested in January are considered previous fall/season, even tho the confirm # restarts every jan. hope that helps us/everyone understand
I wish we would go back to the paper tags.
Crow I have to agree with you. I hate the new tag system and used to always look forward to my "colored" tags coming in the mail. I have registered every deer I have ever taken but with the print off tags it seems way too simple not to. I used to enjoy punching the date and attaching the tag to my deer. The state needs to rethink both the current tagging system and the ridiculous liberal number of tags one hunter is allowed per year. I hunt zone 11 and it is pretty much an unlimited number if you want it to be.
Primo
The number of deer we take now with all the options,,gun,,private,,ect has done its job.. Come on,,forget about private,,you can take 6 deer,,4 archery,,1 shotgun,1 blackpowder,,..That's why they up,,ed the tags because of the number of deer we had in the 80,s and 90,s. I'm not old,,51,,my first time hunted bow in this state was in 79..The 1st place I hunted was what we call HOGSBACK DAM in RIVERTON/Colebrook..GOODWIN DAM. I remember you could not walk 20 feet in the woods without starting to count rubs after rubs,,scrapes after scrapes..LOL I still couldn't kill a deer,,But that senerio was everywhere I hunted on state propertys. Then the state went from October opening day archery to September,,from 2 tags to 4..what do thinks gonna happen..It was put forth too get the herd down and guess what it did its job..This isn't ohio,,Kentucky,,or other states that manage there deer,,food plots on state property,,ect..Now I hunt the same places I have since ive started and I still find deer but I most often feel like I'm hunting Northern Maine,,little or no sign. No Kilpatrick hasn't ruined it in my opinion,,less herd now along with ample tags still plus growing black bear population,,wella its conn folks,,you want bigger bucks put a antler restriction,,you want too see more deer,,less tags,,only my opinion,,,peace
I don't think you will ever see the state go back to the Paper tags. It comes down to Cost. They need to be printed, they need to be mailed / distributed and it all cost $$$. At a minimum, the state should change the tags so you need to log in with your conservation ID to get them, then put logic in the print process so that A) you conservation ID is printed on the tag and B) unique serial numbers are assigned. If you lose/damage your tags you will need to log in and reprint which would inactivate the old serial number and issue new ones for any unused tags. Then the reporting system should as which serial number tag you used. There always will be people that will cheat, but the current tag system is almost inviting people to do so
After reading all the posts on this subject I would say that there are many good and valid points mentioned. We've read and discussed all of this in the past and it seems like more and more people are finally realizing where this state's deer herd is heading. However, I wouldn't blame it all on one person. We, as hunters, have to take a long look in the mirror also. All the reasons listed above in the responses did have an affect on the sad state of our deer population, but, as I have been arguing for years, we need to show some restraint on our part. Just because we can legally shoot unlimited numbers of deer in certain areas or just because we can hunt the whole month of January for example doesn't mean we should. Being selective and killing fewer is the only way we can rebuild. I still read posts on here from time to time about killing 10, 15 or more deer in a single year. This is the kind of practice that needs to stop. Step up and be part of the solution. Its very simple to see what has happened here and we all bit hook, line and sinker. We too bear some of the responsibility! To better answer HH's question, follow the money and it mostly leads to big insurance companies wanting to reduce the number of deer/car collisions. As stated above, new season and liberal bag limits came into affect and we all drank the Kool-Aid. Now we have to smarten up and fight our way back!! No, I don't think its all on Kilpatrick, but yes he was PART of the machine that pointed the way to where we are now...as are we!
