Bowsite.com

were you hunting on public or private lands in Redding?

Glen why do you always go down the blame the non-residents road here. I saw more vehicles hunting in Redding this year than I have in the past few years and most of them were not out of state plates. Do you have the statistics to back up your claims, please present them if you do. Out of the 102 deer Killed in Redding so far this year how many were by out of state hunters vs CT residents?

Spike - We are not currently hunting in Redding; ever since the CAES study, I and another 20 hunters that have hunted Redding for the past 40 years have backed off Redding to give the deer a chance to rebound. sounds good but what towns hold enough deer for the 20 hunters ? Just asking not being a ball buster . I have hunted Redding too for over 40 years ,.STEVE

They took 87 deer on 3 square miles over a three year period. The test sites were baited on the outside edges which brought deer in from outside of the test sites.

There's an important factor in the WB harvest of the 87 deer over the 3 year period that needs to be addressed.

Year 1 the take was 51 deer

Year 2 the take was 25 deer

Year 3 the take was 11 deer

I think you can tell the slope of that line if you were to plot it on a graph. I think you can also tell if it's going in the favorable or unfavorable direction as well.

The historical pattern has been (as per hunter reports on acorn abundance) to see between a 10-15% drop-off in year over year harvest numbers.

This year the trend would put that drop-off at 30-35% if present numbers continue for the balance of 2015 and Jan 2016. Those numbers get even worse when you factor in Sunday hunting beginning Oct 1st and providing additional time afield.

When that gets thrown into the mix the drop-off percent (again, if harvest rates hold on par for the season to date through Jan 31st 2016) would be at or near 40%.

That's a bit more than a statistical anomaly.

As has been stated on other threads we as hunters have the ability to self-police; when we feel numbers are down we can take our respective feet off the gas pedal.

If a downward trend were the equivalent of a reduction of <1 deer per year and someone stated this caused them to back off hunting I'd be in the chorus of the "you've got to be kidding me" chanters.

That however isn't the reality; an annual average reduction of 29 deer in a 2 square mile area is just that; a reduction of 14.5 deer per square mile. Redding is 32.1 square miles (less than 0.6 that is water) leaving a land area of 31.5 square miles.

If you want to extrapolate the annual average of 29 deer to represent the entire town of Redding than you would divide that number by 2/31.5 (or multiply it by 31.5/2, whichever is easier) and the extrapolated effect would be an average annual reduction of approximately 228 deer. I don't think you'd find many people arguing that an impact of 228 deer would represent a much larger impact than <1 deer.

I'd call that responsible stewardship personally.

Block Island was able to reduce their deer herd by 400 deer just by paying "hunters" (not WB) $150 per tail delivered along with the carcass in evidence. WB wanted to be paid $128k to do the same thing with taxpayer's money but the island residents protested and WB was stopped. If you're ok with WB getting paid with your money then I say have at it.

I don't hunt anywhere near Redding, but as a taxpayer it just irks me to spend that kind of money when other studies have shown less deer = less ticks. Even Dr Williams stated the study was a failure but he's blaming hunters in the area for screwing it up, didn't say how though and I really don't care. There's better ways to spend my money.

so it seems to me that the problem in Redding is that some residents want less deer, but according to the Town Hall site they don't want you to kill them, it's blood sport. They want the state to sterilize the 100k+ deer in the state or move them to a refuge.

And yet if they allowed hunters on their property the problem would be reduced as you stated. Paying an outfit like WB big money makes matters worse in my eyes because the deer are still being killed but now the taxpayers are footing the bill. I know that's not why WB was there, just trying to make sense of the 2 options for harvesting the animals.

In Redding the eradication was funded from a federal grant money. Elsewhere the money will come from local and/or state budget (tax money CT residents "donate").

On a different/tangential subject: Looking back at the reason(s) that motivated colonists to engage a well trained British army and considering the level of taxation today I would consider the experiment a failure. It took an explosion of will power marked by personal sacrifice to overturn the status quo only to have it reinstated over time by constant erosion.

if Block Island was able to do it, why not in Redding?

Dr Williams - exactly how do you count the ticks anyway? I'm sure you're not counting what's on the deer that are killed, you would have count a specific section where deer reduced, right? Do you beat the bushes into nets, like gathering olives in Italy?

Just compare apples to apples....So what did they do on Block Island? There was a population estimated of between 800-1,000 deer, which equates to 83-103 dsm. Hunters removed 400 deer so now there is between 41-83 dsm. Successful yes, more work needed, yes.

so are you saying that WB killed the number of deer they contracted to kill in Redding? The data says they didn't, so..............?

I agree, you can kill more deer at night with high powered rifles, suppressors, bait, night vision, shooting from elevated positions, etc, but 400 by hunters is still pretty damn good. Do it again next season and now you're there at half the cost.

oh yeah, one more thing. The "General Public" on BI didn't want WB.

Mike. That is absolutely the reality. And what are you talking about and what kind of math is that? WB was restricted to 2 square mile in Redding. There they removed 87 deer over three years. Yes. That equates to over 14 deer/square mile/year, ON THOSE 2 SQUARE MILES, but extrapolated over Redding’s 32 square miles, that results in total reduction of less than 1 deer/sm. Are you saying if they had reduced density 14 deer/square mile on all of Redding land area that would be cause for concern? I would agree with you, but your math isn’t even correct. If they reduced density by 14 deer/sm on all of Redding’s 32 square miles, that would be a reduction of 448 deer townwide, not 228 as you report. But then again, how could there be a townwide 14 deer/square mile reduction if Redding is already at single digit densities?

Bob. Yes, Block Island hunters took 400 deer, but there are still a boatload remaining. Harvest does not determine remaining density. Increased harvest is usually a pretty good indication of increased density. I’m willing to guess that with a concerted effort with bounty in place in perpetuity on Block, that hunters could get densities to about 30/square mile, or a population of 300 deer. With hunting restrictions lifted, sharpshooting can get them much lower. Block Island had private residents footing the bounty. I have talked about a reimbursement to hunters or something along the lines of financial incentive, but traditionalists are very wary of it because of fears of market hunting. Look for an experimental study within the next few years I would bet. As far as tick sampling, we count the number of ticks feeding on rodents we capture in people’s yards throughout the summer and also have a crew that drags a cloth along a transect of known distance in the yard repeatedly throughout the summer. We have multiple residences in each of the 4 treatment areas one of which of course is a control treatment where no intervention occurred to track natural fluctuation in populations. The “General Public” wanted WB on Block Island, which is why they were contracted to be out there. It was the “Hunting Public” who didn’t want them. Shock.

Tobywon. Yes. WB was used after the hunting season in all 3 years. And you are correct with why we went with a sharpshooting outfit was to attempt to get densities where we needed them for the results of the study. To date, hunters have not been able or willing to achieve those densities in a residential setting. A study I would like to do would be to use hunters and train them to attempt to achieve those densities. We know it can be done, just takes oversight and discipline. It really is not rocket science.

What was the end result of the Redding study in terms of the deer tick impact? In all the hoopla about WB I don't recall seeing what the actual data ended up showing.

On a 2 square mile area of Redding WB took the equivalent of 14.5 deer per year per square mile.

(87 deer in 3 years, 87/3 = 29/year 29 deer on 2 square miles, 29/2 = 14.5 dpsm per year

Redding is 31.5 square miles (land only)

Study area is 2 square miles so it is 6.3% of the total area 2/31.5 = 6.3492063%

In order to project WB deer removal impact for the entire town you have to make treat the numerator (#deer taken) and denominator (sq mi of test area) equally, otherwise you skew the result in the direction of whichever single factor you use.

14.5 dpsm x 31.5/2 = 228.375 (you could also divide the 14.5 by 2/31.5 if you prefer)

You have to account for the other 29.5 square miles of Redding in some way; either by using a correction factor (ironic, isn't it?) or by including the deer removal on that 29.5 sq mi via hunting.

As Glen was basing his not hunting on town-wide deer harvest numbers that has to be quantified in some way. You can include hunter harvest and add it to the WB take or you can omit that hunter harvest but only if you then correct for the WB total only being 6.3% of the town. You have to do one or the other; you did neither.

Mike, the point is moot because the average townwide impact was less than 1 deer/square mile/year reduction, hardly a cause to abandon all hunting pressure in town. That said, your math is still wrong. There is no skewing, there is no single factor, this is basic math man. If we assume a fictitious 14.5 deer/sm reduction on 31.5 square miles, the result is as simple as:

14.5 deer/square mile x 31.5 square miles = 456.75 deer

Why the heck are you dividing the total land area by half? That makes no sense. My math is grade-school basic and correct and I am helping your fictitious scenario. Why must you dilute it by half? Why? So are you saying that White Buffalo killed 87 deer on 2 square miles over 3 years, but what they really did was kill 228.375 deer on 31.5 square miles in 1 year? Come on man! You can throw numbers around but you are not going to turn guys on this site into believing that! Is this for real?

Thanks for the correction on the math; the division by 2 was getting to 1 sq mile so the equation should have been 31.5/1 not 2.

The other means to the correct answer would have been to divide 29 by 0.063 (the percent of Redding the test area was) which would yield 460.317 deer harvested.

Another route could have been 29/2 = x/31.5, multiply both sides by 31.5 so 31.5 x 14.5 = x which comes out to 456.75.

Anyhow, while interesting it still leaves unresolved the central point of where you are still wrong.

Glen's position was not that he (and the other 20) stopped hunting because of the <1 dpsm removed by WB; it was due to the decline of the deer herd as demonstrated after the CAES study by the private survey.

To cast the reason as you did is simply false. Why it was done was to trivialize his argument which is not surprising as it seems to be an oft-repeated tactic.

When Glen (or anyone else) looks at a decline by 2/3's in harvest numbers for Redding that's much more of a decline than <1 dpsm and that's the point that I seriously doubt escapes you.

So what remains is you either need to adjust the WB take for a townwide number (456 or 460, pick one) or obtain the take for the remaining 29.5 sq miles of Redding and add that to the 29 deer/year to arrive at the impact to the herd.

I suppose now that we've resolved the math issue it just comes down to understanding basic English for you.

Perhaps take is down in Redding this year because there are 21 fewer guys hunting there. . . Man, I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried. This is gold Jerry, Gold!!

If you were a 20-year old kid just feeling your oats I might understand this need to impress people with stuff you know nothing about and the chronic lying thing of yours. But you're a grown man with a wife and kids and you act like a horse's backside on a public forum ! You think you look good when you make stuff up and then try and lie your way out? You need some serious help and you need it yesterday!

What does this even mean???? White Buffalo's take on 2 square miles somehow magically had the same impact on the remaining 29 square miles they had no authority to be on? Remember your "Magic Deer" Patch post from years ago, now those deer that White Buffalo did not kill on the remaining 29 square miles in Redding where they did not have access are "truly magic deer."

It's funny you have the words "fictitious" and "lame" in your post. What could be more lame than concocting a fictitious quote from me rather than just admitting you couldn't produce the quote as I never made it.

Speaking of works of fiction perhaps you can make up a quote from Glen about leaving Redding because of the 87 deer WB took. I mean we both know he never stated anything like that but since when have you let anything like the truth stop you?

By any chance have you considered getting tested for Attention Deficit Disorder? You seem to have a very difficult time following really simple concepts.

If Glen states he left Redding alone due to sustained hunting pressure and low town-wide deer densities why is it you keep harping on a small percentage of the town as the cause? If I type it really slowly would that help? How about stick figure diagrams in crayon? Of perhaps an Etch-a-Sketch?

Here's the concept Skippy; Glen backed off because of the impact TOWN WIDE. That's TOWN WIDE. As in TOWN WIDE. Meaning TOWN WIDE. Are you catching on yet Skippy? TOWN WIDE...TOWN WIDE....TOWN WIDE....

I could find a seal at Mystic Aquarium that could catch on faster than you......

Maybe you shouldn't drink and blog Scott......

"Glen's position was not that he (and the other 20) stopped hunting because of the <1 dpsm removed by WB; it was due to the decline of the deer herd as demonstrated after the CAES study by the private survey."

The CAES study removed an average of less than 1 deer/square mile TOWNWIDE in Redding each of three years, regardless of what Glen's bogus FLIR survey showed.

"So what remains is you either need to adjust the WB take for a townwide number (456 or 460, pick one) or obtain the take for the remaining 29.5 sq miles of Redding and add that to the 29 deer/year to arrive at the impact to the herd."

I really am not sure what you are saying here, but it seem that you are saying we should extrapolate WB's take on 2 square miles to the other 29 square miles where they had no access. Hell, why stop there. If they averaged 14.5 deer/square mile on each of 2 square miles over three years, let's just extrapolate that equivalent take TOWNWIDE, TOWNWIDE over three years. So really the 87 deer White Buffalo took as part of the study (ON 2 SQUARE MILES SKIPPY) was more like (14.5 deer/square mile x 31.5 square miles x 3 years = 1,370 deer). So according to you, the 87 WB deer actually is more like 1,370. Right? This is where you were going with this right?

Why must you overtly attempt to deceive the readers here with such bogosity? It is so lame and transparent and so easily proven wrong. You are really doing a number on your reputation with this line of insanity and clearly have little respect for the intellect of the guys on this site. I would suggest abandoning it for your own good because it is so over the top and so damaging to your reputation.

If Glen is leaving Redding because of a TOWNWIDE TOWNWIDE reduction by WB of less than 1 deer/square mile, then wow! Just WOW! TOWN WIDE! TOWN WIDE! Less than 1 deer/square mile, TOWN WIDE!

Scott Williams - " We needed to get deer densities to 10-12/square mile on the test sites in order to test the hypothesis that reductions of deer to those levels in an inland setting would reduce tick densities and tick-borne disease. Direct hunter interference, harassment, counter-baiting, and ultimately safety concerns prevented us from achieving those densities, our objective remains unanswered "

Scott Williams of the CAES has done exactly what he said he would do; summed up in the ITM test study proposal stating, "……we will incorporate established and novel components that will enhance the outputs and outcomes of the project. " What he really should have said was, “ we will manipulate the facts and the protocols for the CDC ITM study to promote ourselves and the pre-determined outcome of the study ".

The March 2013 Interim Progress Report for the CDC ITM study states, " a target deer density below 10 animals per square mile was achieved ", page 17 part B).

January 9, 2014 (CT DEEP Forum, Putnam Park) Scott Williams states that the deer numbers were 30+ deer per square mile in both test sites.

January 24, 2014 CAES aerial survey data was published and shows that deer numbers had increased to 35+ deer per square mile in both test sites.

February 11, 2014 CAES aerial survey data was published and later stated by Scott Williams that deer numbers had increased to 45 deer per square mile in test site.

Now those are some really magical deer, a 350% population increase in less than a year.

It would seem a mystery or even magic, that deer exponentially increased in numbers in these two areas even though the CAES stated in their original proposal, " we do not necessarily expect immediate ingress of deer into treatment areas as deer typically do not shift established home ranges into areas of lower density (105b, 105c) or even to accommodate temporary bait sites (105d, 105e) ".

Like all magic there’s a trick or a deception. In this case the deception is the manipulation of data to include multipliers and increased survey areas, what Scott Williams calls; loose or elastic test site boundaries were 2, square mile test sites magically become 3 square miles in size; a 50% increase.

Great quote but not for the reason you thought Scott. Let's look at overt attempts to deceive the readers you've made repeatedly:

1. Despite dozens, if not hundreds of posts between myself, BigBuckBob and Bloodtrail stating we hunt in the NW corner (or North Central) you continually post that we're upset about not having enough deer in FF County. (For the record Scott none of us are upset about the numbers of bighorn sheep in Nevada either. Just in case you're wondering.....)

2. Despite never saying anything whatsoever about 40-50dpsm being "too low" you post this as the Holy Grail we're all upset about. When twice challenged to put up the poster's name and the quote you fail to muster up a whimper of a response. On the third try you fabricate nonsense out of whole cloth, insist you're quoting me and then stand behind the lie. For the record, what I started this response with was what an actual quote looks like Scott; just so you have a knowledge base for the next time.

3. When BBB posts about conditions he's had firsthand knowledge of for over 40 years you infer he doesn't know what he's talking about. Aside from the fact that you've never hunted in the woods he described you weren't even born when he started hunting them. Talk about bogosity-indeed!

4. When Glen refers to deer harvest townwide, never mentioning WB you post he's gone into seclusion over the impact WB had townwide. Townwide harvest impacts refers to ALL hunting as Glen's statement was written Scott; WB is just the most recent strawman you've erected. Somewhere in the dairy farms of CT cows will have to make due with less feed this winter with all the strawmen you've erected.

5. In spite of corrections to your outright lie about Glen's reasoning you still continue to post easily discerned lies as above. For the last time WB is your lame excuse and Glen never brought it up when discussing his reasons for backing off.

Since I'm trying my darndest to educate you on what a real quote looks like here's Glen's:

"Spike - We are not currently hunting in Redding; ever since the CAES study, I and another 20 hunters that have hunted Redding for the past 40 years have backed off Redding to give the deer a chance to rebound. With the out of state crowd now pressuring the deer ( mostly does ) it does not look good for the future unless the CT DEEP steps in and ends the unlimited doe and bonus buck tags. I know what 20-30 dpsm looks like in Redding; unfortunately I now know what 7 dpsm looks like as well !"

Perhaps you can point out where "WB" is mentioned? Oh, and before you rob any more cows of straw "since the CAES study" refers to a period in time, you know like "since yesterday", "since last year" "since the last time Scott Williams told the truth" (oops-strike the last one, it redlines the "bogosity meter")

And lest I underestimate your predisposition to try and lie your way out of your messes, "out of state hunters" refers to that group's hunting practices in the present hunting season. Now toddle over to the Calendar and put your finger on March 2015. That's before the current season so the "out of state hunters" aren't WB; and as you pointed out in a rare moment of truthfulness, WB aren't hunters so the quote wouldn't have referenced them regardless of timeframe.

Yes indeed Scott, the reader can quite clearly see Glen never referred to WB, it's impact or the type of boots they prefer or where they go to get their manicures. Every reader can see that once again Chef Scott is serving up Beef bourgouyne BS.

Speaking of bogus Scott why is everyone associated with FFCMDMA still peddling the lie that reducing deer numbers in a non-insular setting will impact Lyme disease? I mean, as an "esteemed advisor" surely to avoid any "bogosity" you've informed them that that correlation has only been demonstrated in insular settings, right? I mean, any ethical scientist would, wouldn't they?

In a way it's comforting to know you're a serial liar and we're not hogging all your finest work in that field.

All in all Scott you are so "The Attack of the Killer Tomatoes"; one of the all-time worst movies ever. The script was not only painfully lame but so utterly predictable that a theater full of deaf people could have figured out the plot.

That's you Scott; a bad movie where the lines are painfully obvious and boringly predictable. You need to fire your script writer and get some new material. Your lies don't even have any imagination behind them anymore.

Oh, there actually is a movie that might better describe you when the subject is deer and deer hunting after all; "Clueless"

I think the quotes that you posted above from Dr Williams are very telling. It's the reason why I sometimes come away from this board with my head spinning due to the every changing information. I get flashbacks to dealing with my teenage daughters years ago when I would try to get to truth of "What happened?"

I'd love to hear Dr Williams explain the numbers posted above.

Anyway, I will be out for rabbits and ducks tomorrow with a DEEP employee. I hope that is okay with folks here and doesn't seem too scientist of me. . . Happy 2016!

Again, the above is what an actual quote from a person looks like. It is verbatim what that person said-period.

Here's you very much rolling like that (misquoting) from the CT DEEP transects thread:

"Mike, So basically, it is you who is saying that hunter’s view 40-50 deer/sm as low density. Do you dispute that? Oh, that’s right. You dispute DEEP methodology and say that despite raw counts of 26/sm, in reality, it is “one half to one third of that”. So it is you, I am quoting you."

This isn't quoting someone Scott, it's a manufactured lie using glue, scotch tape and a few paper clips.

And to address the attempt to paint 40-50 dpsm as "low density" it becomes all the more absurd when you look at an actual quote I did make (and which you did not bother to quote):

"Thirdly, not a single hunter would dispute even an uncorrected population of 26 dpsm would be cause for alarm let alone an endless chorus of whining. Posting that number is another misrepresentation of the hunters who disagree with the state's numbers position and Scott knows it.

Those hunters are posting concerns because they believe the actual number to be anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of the state's uncorrected number. That is an entirely different argument and it wouldn't serve as a means to minimize legitimate concerns."

The concerns have never been about 40-50 dpsm as plainly evidenced by my actual quote. For starters I very clearly stated that even the uncorrected count of 26 dpsm would not be cause for concern. Clearly Scott, 26 is less than 40-50, so you're saying that (40-50) is what I considered low density and you're "quoting" me is laughable on the facts. The actual concerns I voiced in my quote are that the deer numbers are about a range of 8.7 to 13 (1/3 to 1/2) dpsm.

Of course quoting what I actually said wouldn't have fit the argument you were trying to spin, and that is exactly how you roll.

Additionally, it would take someone with an IQ “south of Gump” (Mike from some past thread) to not to realize that when Glen was referring to the CAES study, he meant the deer take aspect of it. Pretty sure on that one, pretty sure.

No, it would take someone with ethics south of "minimal" to try and misrepresent what someone actually said to suit their agenda.

Roll Scott, roll.

And evidently your deliberate attempts at misquoting don't go unnoticed:

"As you try to twist that quote above shown in your favor one can feel your desperation."

Roll Scott, roll......lmao

I can only infer what you mean by what you write here. I am not a mind reader. Perhaps you should take a breath and use your words to better explain what you mean. For instance, and I quote you:

"So what remains is you either need to adjust the WB take for a townwide number (456 or 460, pick one) or obtain the take for the remaining 29.5 sq miles of Redding and add that to the 29 deer/year to arrive at the impact to the herd."

What does this mean? Why are you adding “456 or 460, pick one” to anything? This is nonsensical. So when you post stuff like this that makes no logical sense, I can only infer that you are suggesting that we have to take what WB took on 2 square miles and pretend that they took the same on the remaining 29 square miles of town where they were not permitted to be. Is that what you mean? My inference and attempts to decipher some of the endless drivel you post here does not mean I am quoting you, merely trying to understand what you post. Be more succinct and less verbose. Everyone here knows you have a pretty substantial vocabulary, now let’s work on your math and communication skills, and histrionics.

What's lame is you are insisting that when I say that I am not concerned about 26 dpsm being low you'll insist that I am concerned about 40-50 dpsm being low; that is simply absurd by any stretch.

What's even lamer though is you stating the only quote from you is the one half to one third; did you miss the full quote I posted from you above? Let me post it again: ""Mike, So basically, it is you who is saying that hunter’s view 40-50 deer/sm as low density. Do you dispute that? Oh, that’s right. You dispute DEEP methodology and say that despite raw counts of 26/sm, in reality, it is “one half to one third of that”. So it is you, I am quoting you."

That is the full quote from you on the DEEP transects survey Scott. So since I never, ever said anything about 40-50 dpsm as low density it is a blatant falsehood-period.

As to what I said let's give it one more go and I'll break it down as simply and concisely as I can:

Part 1: ""Thirdly, not a single hunter would dispute even an uncorrected population of 26 dpsm would be cause for alarm let alone an endless chorus of whining."

I don't see how that meaning can be any clearer; not a single hunter means exactly that; not a single hunter and the number is the uncorrected 26 dpsm. So not a single hunter sees that number as a cause for alarm (or an endless chorus of whining).

Are you with me on that?

Part 2: "Those hunters are posting concerns because they believe the actual number to be anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of the state's uncorrected number."

Again, very clearly where the line for concern is drawn is where hunters believe the actual number to be 1/3 to 1/2 the raw (26 dpsm) number, which comes out to the 8.7 to 13 dpsm.

Now would you admit that if 26 is less than 40-50 it must be true that 8.7-13 is also less than 40-50 dpsm?

Are we still in agreement here?

Now as this is again written exactly as I originally posted please tell me or anyone here how your statement about quoting me on being concerned about 40-50 dpsm being low numbers is anything other than a complete fabrication on your part.

I won't speak for Glen or for Bob and for the record I'm not "nutted up"; I am however annoyed that a doctorate degreed person cannot see that what I wrote doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to your "quote" from me. To continue to attempt to do anything other than admit you misrepresented what I said isn't merely lame, it's patently dishonest and you, I and anyone else reading this knows it.

We'll get to the other item when you can at least acknowledge the above as fact.

And I mean an unqualified, not grudging admission so we're clear.

Your synopsis is based on the results from a cheap FLIR survey from a notoriously poor-performing company that surveys a square mile on the average of 4 minutes at the town-wide scale, while zooming in to take pretty pictures of deer as well, while it takes staff at DEEP, CAES, and Davis Aviation 45 to 60 minutes to survey a single square mile. I don’t think it takes a “doctorate degreed person” to figure out who is going to have better detection and who is going to catch maybe 25% of the animals standing out in the open.

How did I do with my quotes? Acceptable? I think someone with their master’s degree would understand what a quote is by now. . . The fact that you must broadcast this nonsense and stand by the FLIR survey results is comical and degrades your reputation considerably. It is you and Glen only who believe this. The rest of the “boots on the ground” guys here have already voiced their opinions and know that that is not the case. Just like the low densities in NW CT you reamed me out about not being able to voice my opinion on because I am 40 years old. Look at Grizz’s data he posted. He saw deer every other time out up there, actually more than every other time. I think it really comes down to “boots on the ground” hunting know how. I get that guys are busy with work and family and soccer and basketball like me and have limited time to get out and want a ton of deer around so they can squeeze in a hunt and sit 50 minutes and whack one before their coffee gets cold, but that is not reality anymore. But to broadcast such lame and obviously erroneous claims of DEEP incompetence and wrong-doing is just stupid and shooting yourself, all of us, in the foot. DEEP is the only advocate hunters have. Name me another one.

Additionally, what makes you such an expert on deer censusing? Let me guess, you bought a hunting license and have “been in the woods a long time.” The only guy on this forum aside from me qualified to speak from experience about censusing deer is Bill Embacher who posts here occasionally (I think) and Chris Siburn aka: Rooster, because he complained so much Jacobson took him up for a couple hours. And where the heck has that guy been? Again, he and Rick as first time observers counted 45 deer/sm in and around Huntington State Park where Siburn hunts and was complaining that density was “dangerously low.” Oh, and I should also point out that that very morning, Rooster and some guys flew over 10.5 square miles of Redding in a Cessna at over 100 MPH which resulted in an average count of 2 deer/square mile. He would not share the results of what he saw with Rick that day because he knew how bad it was. You can see Glen’s report in the attached link claiming 2 deer/square mile densities in Redding, seriously.

If you look for deer from the air, you are going to find them. If you blow over the top of them too fast, you won’t. Pretty sure I know who I want on my side when it comes to aerial recon on the battlefield, certainly not VisionAir or Rooster and crew in a Cessna. . .

Actually Scott, if you would simply admit you misspoke about where the point of concern on deer numbers actually was (based on my actual quote) this horse would not only still be living but happily galloping out in the fields.

While I applaud your improvement in deflection you never did address your error. Given that this now represents about the half-dozenth time you have performed the equivalent of denying water is wet I'll ascribe the lack of admission to the inability to perform such an act. Sigh indeed.

but you are saying that the actual number of deer they saw and counted was bogus, and that the actual density is, let me get this correct now, “1/3 to 1/2 of the state's uncorrected number.”

You know what's amazing about that last statement by you Scott? What's amazing is that's actually what I said, that's what I stated you misrepresented by claiming my point of concern on deer numbers was 40-50 dpsm and it's more than ironic that you can't admit the 40-50 dpsm "quote" was something you made up.

You do realize Scott that when you, Scott C. Williams, PhD. state that I, Michael D. Lamagdeleine MS, MT(ASCP) said "1/3 to 1/2 of the state's uncorrected number" you've put in print an admission that you've been lying and haven't had the character to just admit the mistake and move on. The best part is now I'm not making the accusation, you are. Not only are your deflections getting better but you're creeping dangerously close to improving on your ethics.

Muchas gracias, amigo.

The fact that you must broadcast this nonsense and stand by the FLIR survey results is comical and degrades your reputation considerably. It is you and Glen only who believe this.

Actually what's comical is anyone automatically ascribing infallability to an imperfect methodology. Now if you can post literature stating that the aerial transect survey method is 100% accurate I will happily admit my statement is incorrect and post a full apology.

With regard to my reputation I can only offer that one should first be cognizant of that which is their own prior to worrying about that which is their neighbor's. The implications of that statement will become clearer with the passage of time.

I get that guys are busy with work and family and soccer and basketball like me and have limited time to get out and want a ton of deer around so they can squeeze in a hunt and sit 50 minutes and whack one before their coffee gets cold, but that is not reality anymore.

Scott, you really need to reign in both your penchant for hyperbole and for making assumptions absent a base of knowledge. Would you care for an illustration of your lack of a knowledge base Scott? You know what, seeing as you've improved in the aforementioned areas, lets see if you can do the same for your divination skills!

In your next reply Scott here's what I expect to see from you:

1. Type of treestand and equipment related to this Mike uses.

2. Type of trees Mike regularly hunts from.

3. Height of Mike's treestands.

4. Conditions Mike hunts in (weather, time of day, wind direction/speed).

5. Number of hours Mike spends on average per sit with a breakdown of early season, pre-rut, rut, post-rut and late season.

If you want to post assumptions about how I hunt Scott you must have the answers to all of the above. It should be a snap to post them for all the visitors here to see. Knock yourself out.

Additionally, what makes you such an expert on deer censusing? Let me guess, you bought a hunting license and have “been in the woods a long time.”

Well Scott, you've just added to your "homework"; I'll also expect a post from me (you can paraphrase given your struggles with quote mastery) where I've claimed to be an expert in census methods.

It's called literature Scott; you know, books, journals, etc. and I'm sure even you will concede that I can at least read at a middle-school level. You're not stating that I wasted my time by chance are you Scott? I'd hate to think that you've devoted countless hours to publications that have no value to anyone after all.

DEEP is the only advocate hunters have. Name me another one.

Gosh Scott, I hope Bob Crook's feelings aren't too bruised; personally I've always considered the Coalition of CT Sportsmen to be the strongest voice for all sportsmen in CT. Here's the link as you seem to be unaware of their existence. http://ctsportsmen.com/

Pretty sure I know who I want on my side when it comes to aerial recon on the battlefield, certainly not VisionAir or Rooster and crew in a Cessna. . .

Funny you should mention recon....did I ever tell you is served in the USMC? That I flew in helicopters in the jungles of the Philippines, certainly a much denser canopy than that found anywhere in CT. Funny, I don't recall seeing you; not in the chopper, not rappelling down to the forest floor. Maybe I missed you in all the excitement.....

Well, I will eagerly await your next literary masterpiece....

Wow, this is interesting stuff ! So we will have to look at one thing at a time. " Cessna at over 100 MPH ", actually the plane flew approximately 60 knots for the survey. I actually worked on both the SR71 and F4E Phantoms during the Vietnam conflict and our planes did film at over 100 MPH with good results.

So lets look at the results, the survey estimated there were "310" deer in Redding, CT. on February 16, 2014. If we take that number 310 deer and add 25% fawn recruitment for the fall season we now have 388 deer in Redding. The 2014 total take for Redding 2014 was 167 deer which leaves 221 deer in Redding.

On January 10, 2015 a privately funded FLIR was done for the entire town of Redding, CT. and the results of the survey were 234 deer or 7.43 dpsm; we also have to subtract the January archery for Redding which was 15 deer for a new total of 219 and we have the films to prove it.

So lets see what we have, the Cessna and hunters came up with 310 deer in February 2014 which equals approximately 221 deer for the end of the 2014 season. Nearly a year later when the entire town of Redding was surveyed the FLIR came up with 219 deer ( with January Archery ). In comparison they look pretty close to me, 221 deer for the Cessna Survey to the 219 deer with the FLIR. The difference between 221 and 219 is a 0.904% difference.

And what did the, CT DEEP, Davis Aviation FLIR and the CAES surveys state for 2014? 30-45 dpsm or 945-1,418 deer in Redding, CT..........Now thats Magic !

Mike. Holy crow. What mistake? If DEEP counted 26 deer/sm raw density, actual density is at least 40 deer/sm. You are saying that densities are actually “1/3 to 1/2 of the state's uncorrected number.” So my point is/was that when true densities are around 40-50 deer/sm, and you are saying that that is incorrect and densities are more like “1/3 to 1/2 of the state's uncorrected number," then you are saying that 40-50 deer/sm is low density. You are saying that DEEP should halve their raw counts. You are saying that true densities of 40-50 deer/sm are actually more like single digits. THAT was my point. So yes, given all this, then you are showing us all that you are “concerned about 40-50 dpsm being low.”

The real point here is you have no baseline with which to base your opinions on density. You have no clue what 100 vs 200 deer/sm looks like. Or 7 vs 50 deer/sm. You take other people's scientifically valid surveys and apply ridiculous, nonsensical math to "prove" that they are wrong to bring it back home to your conclusion that FF County deer density is in single digits. No one believes you and I am showing you where you are incorrect. Why do you continue to go down kicking and screaming with the ship?

Obviously I have no clue what your methods and equipment are for hunting just as you don't know mine. Again, I can only deduce from your posts here reaming DEEP survey methodology and results, fighting the correction factor, and more recently, suggesting they apply a negative correction factor, that you are advocating for ACTUAL deer abundances around 100 deer/sm so you can see a lot of deer, have a lot of targets, and make it super easy to go "hunting."

I do remember you were in the Marines and I thank you for that. I completely agree with you that the Philippines have a much “denser canopy than that found anywhere in CT.” Believe it or not, I have flown in a 737 over Canada and there too the conifers make for “denser canopy than that found anywhere in CT.” But I am guessing that you weren’t trained by the USMC to count deer and that your time in the Philippines was not spent counting deer through an impenetrable tropical forest canopy. Unlike the Philippines, Connecticut’s canopy is mostly deciduous, which is exactly why we do aerial deer surveys during the dormant season, so you can see to the forest floor. I also remember fellow Marine Larry Davis of Davis Aviation ripping you a new one on Bowsite on your flawed synopsis of his work and him telling you that you had "your head up your fourth point of contact." (Admittedly I had to look that one up and now I know it means your bum because that is the 4th point to hit the ground when parachuting down? Right?) He also told you to improve your hunting skills and if you wanted to know where the deer were in Redding to ask him, because he knew where they were.

Literary masterpiece?? I am humbled, shucks, thanks Mike. So am I to understand that we are in a literary competition here? I thought we were debating deer hunting, deer censusing, and deer management. I don't need to try to write like this, it just comes out that way. I guess it runs in the family as my old man is an outdoor writer. Your prose seems forced and the use of your vocabulary, while impressive, too seems forced. I'd suggest reading and studying up more about deer management, public ownership of wildlife, density calculations, math, stuff like that instead trying to impress with your writing skills.

The one you keep repeating Scott; the one where I say I'm concerned that deer densities are actually 8.7-13.0 dpsm while you insist on trying to insert your 40-50 dpsm nonsense into my mouth.

For starters, what you think the actual densities are is irrelevant to the argument; all that matters is what I actually said.

Now if you want to continue to play games the only person's credibility who's taking a hit is yours. Everyone who's read this thread by now is fully convinced you're making up a quote because you simply refuse to admit you got caught in a lie.

On that subject game-playing is over. Either produce a quote, verbatim or kindly stop playing games and wasting everyone's time.

Obviously I have no clue what your methods and equipment are for hunting just as you don't know mine.

Then you'll agree that the remainder of the paragraph you posted amounts to self-serving tripe as by your own words you haven't a clue about what I use or how I hunt. Thank you; that wasn't so hard now was it?

And no Scott, we're not in a literary competition we're trying to engage in an important discussion on the future of deer hunting in CT. I would hope we're trying to do the best we can, as much as is humanly possible to get it right given the consequences of getting it wrong.

If we look at both sets of figures and apply the statistics compiled in the CT DEEP 2014 summary report we may be able to shed some light on which figures seem to be more in line with what's really on the ground. For clarity, all numbers are post-season (2014) and do include January harvest totals)

From a variety of surveys the state seems to arrive at a range of 945-1,418 deer in Redding (30-45 dpsm).

From the fixed wing flight and the follow-up FLIR the hunters have a range of 219-221 deer or 6.96-7.02 dpsm)

In 2014 for Zone 11 shotgun/rifle accounted for a harvest of 236 deer with a success rate of 20%, while archery accounted for a harvest of 1,257 deer with a success rate of 41%.

For the of calculating relative approximation of numbers we'll use a weighted average success rate of 37.85% (as archery was approximately 85% of the harvest we'll take the archery success rate of 41% and multiply it by 0.85, then add the shotgun rifle success rate of 20% multiplied by 0.15).

The 2014 harvest in Redding was 167 deer. With a starting point of 388 deer this amounts to a success rate of 43.04%.

If we use the states low end of 945 deer a harvest of 167 deer equates to a success rate of 17.7%, on the high end of 1,418 deer it amounts to a success rate of 11.8%.

So we have a weighted average of 37.85% for the Zone 11 harvest from the CT DEEP 2014 summary report.

If the hunter numbers are correct they compare as follows: 43.04% to 37.85%

The state numbers compare as follows:

17.7% to 37.85%

11.8% to 37.85%

The hunter results deviate from the weighted average by 13.7%.

The state results deviate from the weighted average by 53.2% and 68.8%

It would seem that the harvest numbers and success rate would argue much more strongly in favor of the hunters numbers being closer to the mark than the states with regard to the actual deer numbers for Redding.

Interestingly enough for more than 30 years it was pretty much this type of backward-looking extrapolation of deer harvest data that the state of CT used to estimate deer numbers. I add this tidbit of information as it would appear that the then CT DEP's biologists seemed to feel this was a valid method and I would not be just another layperson dabbling in numbers when I employ this methodology.

Here you go. Actual densities are 40-50/sm. You say they are in single digits. Logic dictates that you think 40-50/=low density. I can’t make this stuff up. You are posting it yourself and providing us the quotes. I am not forcing you to say this nor am I putting words in your mouth. Show me where I have ever made up a quote, of course aside from where I wrote out “one third” and “one half” and switched their order. The difference is, I’m solid in my reputation in the deer world. I speak the same language as the state and regional biologists and managers. They read what I am posting here and nod their heads yes. In fact, I make PDFs of most of these threads and email them to lots of them. And they nod their heads yes, say we are sick of this same old nonsense, and say it’s about time someone told these guys how it is.

Bow down to Mike. “. . . all that matters is what I actually said.” ---Mike in CT (1/2/2016).

Mike, you and Glen are in your own world with your math. It makes no sense and the numbers you vomit onto this forum are random and unsubstantiated. I cannot follow them because they are invalid and come from out of the blue with no merit. And if I cannot follow them, I am pretty sure there is no one else here on this site interested or able to follow them. I have shown the guys here from previous posts that your math is bad. I even showed them that when you were trying to create fictitious take for White Buffalo across all of Redding, you were selling yourself short by 50%. Just stop man. You are embarrassing yourself.

why are you on this site? You say you're here to support and educate the hunting community but you encourage hunters to band together to become nothing more than animal control officers, killing deer that certain home owner's or town leaders want removed. That's not being an advocate for hunters and hunting, at least not the kind hunting that I've known and loved for the past 47 years.

Educate? You've turned the forum into your personal battle ground for studies and programs that you instituted, so I wonder why you feel the need to argue the same points over and over? Let it go! Tell us about the fawn recruitment, plans to improve deer habitat, new areas the state may be purchasing, areas where hunting pressure is light, predator impact, future DEEP tag limits or season, etc.

And why tell the hunters on this site about the Town Forum? Why did the DEEP even start the town forum if what you say about DEEP officials monitoring this site is true? Is this an attempt to try to divide and conquer the hunting community? To get a few hunters and/or trappers to become disrespectful on the town forum with the antis, so landowners won't allow hunters on them on their land; just to pave the way for groups like WB to go in and kill the deer? I have no idea why that was even started by the DEEP and it makes me wonder what their intent is for the site.

These are questions, not answers, so don't come back and say BBB is a conspiracy nut. I just don't understand why you're on this site based upon 2 years of listening to you cover the same topics over and over.

If you're here to educate, than avoid the personal arguments. If you're here to support the hunters, then act like a fellow hunter and avoid the condescending comments when others don't agree. I've had many disagreements with others on this site, but I have to say we remained respectful of each other's opinions.

I didn't come to this site to battle about ticks and Lyme disease studies, or the number of deer on a certain transect in Redding. I came to get information about hunting in CT and maybe give a new hunter or two some information about where to go and what to do concerning deer hunting. I was a math major for my under-grad degree, but I didn't come here to re-visit my calculus class from college. :)

They are obviously present, the Deer Experts tell us so ... We just can't see them. The part I don't understand is how they leave no tracks or sign, even in the snow.

As I said Scott I'm done playing games with you. Logic dictates if I say I'm concerned about a number that is the number I'm concerned about and any other number is meaningless.

If you were 5 years old I could excuse the nonsensical game you insist on playing, ascribing it to a child's fixation on games. You're supposed to be an adult-start acting like one. Logic dictates if someone states <10 dpsm is low that is what they consider low. Any number greater than 10 would not be considered low. Logic dictates anyone positing a greater number would be considered low is an imbecile.

You are posting it yourself and providing us the quotes.

Yet you've yet to produce a single quote that says what you claim. NOT ONE.

I am not forcing you to say this nor am I putting words in your mouth. Show me where I have ever made up a quote, of course aside from where I wrote out “one third” and “one half” and switched their order.

Well Scott, when you say you're quoting me on the 40-50 dpsm being low and you can't produce a single QUOTE from me you're darn tooting making stuff up.

Producing a quote does not mean INVENTING a quote Scott. Now stop being such a baby and admit I never uttered the words you keep making up. Now would be a good time to display some ethics.

And seeing as you struggle with basic concepts I'll try this and type really slow:

F-O-R-T-Y T-O F-I-F-T-Y I-S M-O-R-E T-H-A-N T-E-N.

I can’t make this stuff up.

The evidence quite clearly says otherwise. The evidence says you make up quite a lot of stuff.

Bow down to Mike. “. . . all that matters is what I actually said.” ---Mike in CT (1/2/2016).

Scott! You got a quote right!! Now if you put it in proper context and left out the self-serving drivel I'd have been really impressed.

I cannot follow them because they are invalid and come from out of the blue with no merit.

Actually Scott I think your deliberate efforts to lie about what I've said point to a reality that says you follow the numbers above quite well. I think they fairly scream that you know the jig is up and are acting as the Minister of Propaganda for the DEEP trying anything and everything to sell the lie. If you could have kept YOUR ego in check you might have had a fighting chance.

And if I cannot follow them, I am pretty sure there is no one else here on this site interested or able to follow them.

Judging from a lot of the comments here Scott it seems like more people not only follow my numbers but agree with them. I'm quite certain that chaps your hide too and leads to the unremitting stream of lies and the failure to admit them even when they're in black and white.

Thanks by the way for the continued citation of the WB math error I made. I really mean that, thanks much. Eveyone here can see once I realized the error I owned up to it. Maybe I should have taken a cue from you and just thrown one hissy fit after another instead of manning up and moving on; nah, I'd hate to infringe on your turf.

You are embarrassing yourself.

And I have every confidence you'll continue that practice Scott; you just can't help yourself.

The Great Deer Density scam has been exposed....

Spike. I was hunting a field edge for rabbits that ran alongside a marsh. It was also a pheasant stocking area. I missed a rabbit on the run. But at least I brought in the new year with a bang.

Ace. You can access near 100% of private property from the air. A check of the attached link reports that 93.8% of CT is privately-owned. The 2015 aerial deer survey report I wrote showed that 83% of the deer we saw from the air were on private land in Redding. We are not making this up. There are lots of deer out there, just not equally distributed on private and public land. Do you dispute this?

If you guys think tag allotment should be reduced as Steve suggests, organize a bunch of hunters around this cause and take it to DEEP and have an honest conversation with them. But use real data and real numbers. Don't engineer fake ones or twist numbers to serve your purposes because that would not hold any weight and will be quickly dismissed, like the continued assertion there are single digit deer densities in FF County. It's simply false. A for instance, If you organize and go to your state rep with such bogus info, he/she goes to the environment committee, they go back and ask their deer expert (Howard) if FF has single digit densities, Howard say no and they dismiss the bogus claim and hunters' reputation is shot and you blew it with the state rep. That is shooting hunters in the foot. If you want to affect change, don't fabricate data! Work with DEEP, not against them.

The only way to put this argument to bed is another deer count. No fudge factors allowed (we are not trying to prove global warming here). The good Dr. Has been transparent in supplying the data he has access to and we should be thanful for the opportunity to do a "peer" review and voice our concerns.

I hunt the NW corner. I too feel the herd is a bit thin. Is this what the DEEP wants? Don't know. I'm not in those meetings. Do I think the tagging system is to generous, yes. I also gun hunt NH. They have a 2 day doe season then buck only (one tag only and it cost you $3 at check in). Talk about hard work if you don't tag a doe. The NH harvest is up 5% this year even after the bruttal winter last year. And they were expecting it to be down and possibly enact further restrictions.

We have one year of low harvest numbers. Is this a trend? Don't know yet. Next year will tell. If the number is the same as 2015 then we might be looking at a new " norm" if it drops further, then we might be in trouble....

I can tell you what most outings are these days....lots of nothing. Look at all the Live Hunts....most end without even a deer seen. Days and days of sitting staring at nothing. This isn't the big woods of Maine....this is suburban CT, where deer should be and can be abundant.

The state can absolutely manage this better. Absolutely.

Five towns are now scheduled to be surveyed in Zone 11 with FLIR in January-February 2016

Spin away doc !

What about a flir study in the NW corner. The fawn study seems conclusive that "something" is going on up there.

I will say I'm curious what the results from the 5 towns are as her surveys can vary tremendously based on time and weather. If deer are active and moving, her methods can detect a bunch. If they are hunkered down and not in the open, forget it.

I guess our definitions of sucky deer hunting differs slightly. If you feel that CT deer hunting sucks now because you don't see deer every time you go out, you have been spoiled with an unrealistically high density for years. If you are passing on deer, the deer hunting does not suck. Again, this is not trout fishing. Hell, even when I go trout fishing, I don't see trout every time out. Seeing deer every time out is not realistic. Seeing deer every time out is not hunting. CT hunters have been spoiled for years and now have completely unrealistic expectations.

You saw a deer, ... you decided not to shoot that deer, ... that proves that the deer hunting in CT "does not suck".

They gave you a PhD for research like that?

As hunters, we practice conservation. We are all not killers in the sense that we need to kill a deer to survive.

Isn't conservation the essence of modern hunting? Take what you need, leave some for the next guy, or leave some for tomorrow.

And we share the woods with you.....

Longbeard, to reiterate, if you have the luxury of being able to pass on deer, hunting does not suck. Period. I too take one deer a year. If hunters want to manage deer, then they should manage deer.

I don't agree that just because you see deer and pass on them that there are plenty of deer where you hunt. There are places on state land where you could sit all year and not see a deer.

The places I hunt have a small resident population and so if I say that I saw 52 deer in 15 outings in a particular season, it doesn't mean there are 52 deer in the area around my stand. It means I see the same 3-4 deer over and over each day in the field.

So if I walk for an hour and cover 3-4 miles each day in the woods and see just 3-4 deer in the area, even if I double it for the deer I don't see, there are still not a lot of deer on that large section of state land. And while walking for an hour I see very little sign, so finding the "pockets" is the key.

I agree with you on this. If I choose to pass on deer, and I sometimes do, and did this year, I can't say that the hunting sucks. Far from it.

Even if I hunt hard all year see two deer all year and put both in the freezer, I wouldn't say the hunting sucks.

I actually think the deer hunting in CT continues to be good, although I agree the numbers are down.

I do understand this is a minority opinion though and my perspective on what constitutes a quality experience hunting is not widely shared.

I think we sometimes answer the same questions from different perspectives.

Do I think CT is a good deer state? Not any more, expecially when I compare it states like Georgia or Alabama,,,,,or the way CT used to be years ago.

Now, does that mean hunting in CT is not enjoyable? Not at all. As most of you on this site know I hadn't shot a deer in 16 years until last year, but those 16 years were very enjoyable hunts. I saw enough deer to make interesting and challenging,....that's all I need.

Now ask me if I think the deer herd in CT is managed correctly? NO. Why? Because according the DEP, CT had a healthy herd back in the 80's and they were encouraging herd growth and I was seeing deer every time out. So to have Dr Williams or anyone in the DEEP say we have too many deer and we need to kill more, more, more just defies common sense. I see deer far less now and I see far less evidence of deer.

And if the FLIR studies use the method of actually walking in the woods to verify what the aerial surveys found, then I can tell you first hand that they are doing what the hunters on this site have done for years. So how can it be a correct method for the survey but not good science when the hunting community uses boots on the ground to determine herd health?

I don't know what the raw numbers when comparing the 80's and now.

Assuming your right though and there were more deer then than now and assuming your also right and the DEEP was encouraging herd growth then, as opposed to now, my take is this.

The DEEP in the 80's were encouraging hunters and hunting as a recreational activity. There wasn't the animal rights opposition there is now, there were no lyme scares, no gun scares and hunting was more of a rural activity more than a suburban one. I also don't think deer to car collisions was on the radar of the insurance companies yet. Compared to now very few hunters bow hunted in the 80's either so suburban hunting wasn't the deal it is now.

So basically in the 80's what you had is the DEEP working for the benefit its primary constituents - hunters and fisherman. Other forces that now influence the DEEP were not yet in play.

As bow hunting grew in popularity and effectiveness with better technology and better hunters, hunting moved more into the burbs and more into the faces of rich urban folks, the DEEP was faced with how to deal with hunting in an urban liberal state that is quickly becoming more and more liberal and further and further removed from country based roots and values. I think the DEEP (and the hunting community in general), made a strategic decision that hunting has to be justified to non hunters in order for it to survive in the new world.

DEEP thought it had to come up with a objective reason that deer should be killed, other than to promote hunting, that would satisfy competing interests. They decided hunting would be justified as a tool to control populations.

I really see this change as having nothing to do with population of animals or biology, it is more a change of attitude of people and the relationship between hunters and non hunters.

My criticism of the DEEP and more so hunters is that we allowed and even encouraged this change for short term gain at the expense of the long term health of the sport.

In other words, when I see someone try to validate the activity of hunting to non hunters or anti hunters, it makes me feel very frustrated. No one hunts to manage deer. Almost all of us "say that", and maybe it's a concept that's been pushed on "us" from both game agencies and groups like QDMA. But realistically, we hunt for many reasons, and managing the deer population is not really a high reason to do so. Management is a side effect of hunting, not a primary rationale for anyone Ive ever met.

Ok, back to the debate :).

My state senator is Ted Kennedy, Jr., freshman state senator from Zone 12, lots of people, and lots of deer and clearly he is connected to Presidents and federal politics. Not sure how much he has hunted, but I also know that he is a fellow graduate of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies where he studied public health. Oh, and he is Chair of the Environment Committee. So, with a guy like this, pretty much in charge of hunting legislation in state, what approach do you think would be best to say, allow shotgun/rifle deer hunting on Sunday? Do you think it would hold more weight if he went back to his constituency and said that all these guys' dads hunted for years and tradition dictates that they should be permitted to hunt with firearms on Sundays because now we can buy alcohol and medical weed on Sundays? Or do you think he and those voters would better accept something more self-serving, like if we let these hunters do their thing on Sundays, there would be more deer taken which would reduce the numbers of ticks and would lessen the risk of the public contracting a tick-borne disease? Come on guys, this is not brain surgery.

you're on the wrong site! If you want to be the advocate for animal control, commercial killing of nuisance animals, disease control through wildlife elimination,...then go to those sites and make your proposals.

I said it before, you're not advocating for the hunting community, at least not the hunting that I grew up with! You say CT doesn't have a hunting tradition and I say to that - who cares as long as those of us that hunt hold to the tradition?

You've made your stance very clear to me this year on this site. I now know to ignore the science you're presenting since it has nothing to do with "traditional hunting." The day that this state adopts what you're selling is the day I sell my hunting equipment to the animal controllers and take up bird watching.

Just further proof that “The biggest threat to today’s sportsmen is today’s sportsmen.”

I know deep down you are not correct.

Management is ultimately a losing argument, not a winning one.

Its not that management is a bad argument, it is just not the best long term argument, even in urbanized liberal states.

If we are managers, ultimately someone is coming to come up with better, more efficient, more cost effective, more politically correct, managers. We are like hamsters in a wheel, constantly trying to redefine who we are and how we operate to maintain our position as managers, and in so doing move further and further away from being hunters. Ultimately it is a battle we cannot win and also remain hunters. In fact it is a battle we probably can't win the long term as managers either.

If we are hunters, we don't have to worry about someone coming along and being better more efficient hunters. Hunting is not a results driven, external metrics based activity like management is. We may lose that battle too, but at least we lose with integrity and not running in the wheel.

hitting the nail on the head bears no weight with Dr Williams. You can't justify hunting as hunting with him!! You can only justify hunting as a way to remove nuisance deer. All other arguments are silly. The scenario you state above is 100% accurate. WB is a better model to remove nuisance deer,.....but it's not hunting, at least not to me.

Dr Williams - so let's carry your argument forward a few years. Are you saying the DEEP will allow "hunters" to use high powered rifles with silencers over bait at night on public and private lands? Is that the future of hunting you're pushing for?

It makes sense to me to hunt with suppression to keep a lower profile from the public and to keep deer naïve. Sure, why not? According to this site, there are 9 states where suppressors are outright illegal and an additional 4 only that do not permit their use when hunting, CT being one of those 4. They are legal for hunting in the remaining 37 states.

you're on the CT BOWSITE! BOWSITE! BOWSITE! Talking about guns with suppressors contributes to this site in what way?

I think I would take the risk of the state going to Suzie Homemaker and asking her permission to send in sharp shooters with high powered assault rifles into her neighborhood to take care of her pest deer.

If Suzie doesn't like hunters, she ain't going to like that idea either and since CT is all private land, the state is going need Suzie's permission for any deer culling activities. So I say, let them have it, send in the sharp shooters into the neighborhoods and see what kind of PR fiasco that turns into.

Right now hunters are doing the state a favor by taking the brunt of the PR fall out, not the other way around.

As far as representation in Hartford, we don't need it. We don't need Hartford, we don't even need the DEEP.

If the DEEP thinks there are too many deer in this state, and hunters decide they aren't going kill as many as DEEP wants, what is DEEP going to do, ban hunting so even less deer get killed? The state is dumb and incompetent, but I doubt they are that dumb.

Hunters would be best served by deciding amongst themselves the best way to manage the herd and do it. If we are committed to it, there is nothing the DEEP can do about it except start knocking on doors themselves and asking permission to send in tax payer funded shooters on to private land and into the suburbs.

Good luck, go ahead give it try. You might be successful in certain areas, but now way would it work on any large scale, and in the mean time Hunters can sit on the sidelines for once out the fray and just hunt.

"Are you saying the DEEP will allow "hunters" to use high powered rifles with silencers over bait at night on public and private lands? Is that the future of hunting you're pushing for?" ------Bob

Is this for real? Are you for real?

Why would any bowhunter subscribe to killing for the sake of elimination? That isn't the essence of being able to take an animal cleanly and effectively with a bow and arrow.

I can't believe we share the woods with you. How did your dad teach you about woodsmanship and respect for the animal? How the heck did you get so jaded towards deer and other bow hunters?

I know what I asked on both counts. You're on bow site talking about hunting with high powered rifles with suppressors, and I want to know why? I also wanted to know if you think this is the future of hunting? Is the DEEP going to allow "hunters" the same latitude given to WB with night hunting, over bait, high powered rifles, no limits, no tags, etc? Are you for real??

This is what you're advocating on a BOWSITE!! Why? Go find a gun site or animal control site and play your games.

Why don't hunters do as I suggest? Because hunters are stupid and brainwashed to think that without government regulation, structure and resources, they are incapable of accomplishing anything.

It's just another example government dependency. Hunters may fly a "don't tread on my flag" off their trucks, but when faced with a real problem, the first inclination is to blame the DEEP and Hartford and then look to the DEEP and Hartford to fix it.

hold on, many of the guys on this site already stated they let deer walk to manage the herd at some small level, so waiting for the government to tell us there's fewer deer is not what's happening overall.

There will always be those that take advantage of the system, but if the system had a tighter control on the allowable harvest then the abuse would be lower also. Someone has to set the speed limit so that if the sign says 65 people know they can go 70 without fear of a ticket. If it were 70 then they would go 85.

We don't need a speed limit, we just have to decide what we want to do and do it. Speed limits don't stop anyone from speeding.

Why do we need the government to tell us how many deer there are? Why do we care how many deer the government thinks there are? If the these threads are any indication, nobody knows how many deer there are

It is all absolutely irrelevant and a waste of time. Hunters hold all the cards, all of them.

DEEP and Hartford are absolutely powerless in this thing unless they rewrite the Constitution on due process and private property rights. The sooner we realize that the better.

Predators kill a lot of deer. I am not in favor of a bear season or a bob cat season whose purpose it is to kill more predators to save deer, or kill more predators to protect hikers.

The deer don't need to be saved from predators. The hikers don't need to be saved from them either.

If we want a predator season because a bobcat of bear is a worthy game animal equal to or even superior to deer, then fine. Bear and bob cats deserve equal respect from hunters that deer do.

If we want to kill bears and bob cats to save the deer, or protect hikers or bird feeders, then it is no different or better than killing deer to save shrubbery, lower insurance premiums or to protect scared housewives from ticks. If we go down that road then we are just managers again, and not hunters.

But your last post made me stand up and sing “Glory, glory, hallelujah. Glory, glory, hallelujah.”

“Why don't hunters do as I suggest? Because hunters are stupid and brainwashed to think that without government regulation, structure and resources, they are incapable of accomplishing anything.

It's just another example government dependency. Hunters may fly a "don't tread on my flag" off their trucks, but when faced with a real problem, the first inclination is to blame the DEEP and Hartford and then look to the DEEP and Hartford to fix it.”

If the State thinks that government sharp shooters can do the job, let them try. Given the political fall out, the time needed to knock on doors, liability issues, public costs in taxes, insurance, I don't think it is feasible on a large scale. Again though, in my opinion, have at it.

It wouldn't hurt hunting a bit in my opinion. If anything after the public backlash, hunters will be seen as the reasonable ones compared to the state, and we will have to do nothing at all except sit back and watch.

you REALLY believe that hunters hold all the cards?? Why does a civilized society establish laws, rules, regulations, licenses, permits, etc if your comments are correct? Really?

As the regs are currently written Hunters do indeed hold all the cards, all of them, and even a fifth ace up our sleeves.

What else do you want? We have all the tags we could possibly want, long seasons, and a ton of flexibility on how we hunt. Basically the regs leave complete discretion to the hunters.

If the regs were tight, like a one week season 10 point buck or better, only longbows, whatever, then the DEEP would hold all the cards because hunters would have no flexibility and no discretion and no freedom to act independently.

DEEP has essentially handed over the reigns to us. We are fee to manage the herd however we want. We don't need anything from them. They have already given us everything we need to do it. Combine that with the amount of private land in the state that DEEP essentially has no access too, and we do in many cases have access to, how can you say that hunters don't have all the cards?

I think I understand your point better after your last post. Yes Ct has very liberal tag limits and seasons, but in the NW corner I want less tags and a shorter season. Now I can chose not to hunt or not to harvest, but all of the other guys who also ignore the speed limits, can take their double digit deer every year regardless of the herd strength.

As for not having seasons on bobcats and bears, I think that falls into the same scenario. Where bobcats and bears are a problem for the BALANCE of wildlife we must use the best tool we have to rebalance, and that's to cull them to more balanced levels. If not, we'll have sharpshooters after them as well.

I think our viewpoints are based upon what we want from hunting and your viewpoint is very different than mine, so we're definitely not going to have the same approach to wildlife management.

We do have different view points, your solution is to allow DEEP make the decision for us.

My viewpoint is for hunters to collectively make the decision (everyone is not going to be happy, but everyone is not going to be happy with DEEP either).

Instead of spending energy and dollars lobbying in Hartford and DEEP, turn that energy inward and lobby ourselves.

More laws and regulations are weak sauce compared people free to do whatever they want but choosing to act together in their cooperative best interest. We don't all win by utilizing the force of government to impose its will on us (even if some of us agree with the will being imposed).

By the way, how many people do you know taking double digit deer every year in the NW corner? Given your inclination to drop a dime, I would have thought if you actually knew that was going on you would have done something about it. It seems to me that kind of statement is nothing but hyperbole.

Why are bears and bobcats a problem for balance? They seem to be balancing just fine. They are wild animals. They are doing what wild animals do. Since when does balance mean there need to be enough deer for human hunters to have a quality hunt. There seem to be enough deer for the bears to have a quality hunt.

Again, I would love a predator season, but it isn't about balancing the scales for deer (whatever that means), its about the opportunity to hunt predators.

We do have different view points, your solution is to allow DEEP make the decision for us.

My viewpoint is for hunters to collectively make the decision (everyone is not going to be happy, but everyone is not going to be happy with DEEP either).

Instead of spending energy and dollars lobbying in Hartford and DEEP, turn that energy inward and lobby ourselves.

More laws and regulations are weak sauce compared people free to do whatever they want but choosing to act together in their cooperative best interest. We don't all win by utilizing the force of government to impose its will on us (even if some of us agree with the will being imposed).

By the way, how many people do you know taking double digit deer every year in the NW corner? Given your inclination to drop a dime, I would have thought if you actually knew that was going on you would have done something about it. It seems to me that kind of statement is nothing but hyperbole.

Why are bears and bobcats a problem for balance? They seem to be balancing just fine. They are wild animals. They are doing what wild animals do. Since when does balance mean there need to be enough deer for human hunters to have a quality hunt. There seem to be enough deer for the bears to have a quality hunt.

Again, I would love a predator season, but it isn't about balancing the scales for deer (whatever that means), its about the opportunity to hunt predators.

I don't know of anyone getting taking double digit deer in the NW corner, and that comment was meant to show that they "could" do it legally if they could find that many deer. Does that make sense? Not many deer in that area yet the DEEP makes it legal to shoot away? That was my point.

I would love to be able to convince all hunters to let young deer pass and only take bucks of a certain size, but the likelihood of that happening are slim. I guess I'm a bit conservative in my viewpoints since I was raise to respect authority, so if the DEEP sets the rules then I need to ask them to change them.

What if the situation was reversed and I thought there were too many deer in my area? Would you advocate just shooting away, regulations be damned? Let the hunter control his destiny?

You only need to ask the DEEP to change the rules if the rules preclude you doing something that you want to do. What do you want to do, that the rules prevent you from doing?

Unless my math is wrong Landowners owning more than 10 acres are the only ones that could potentially reach 10 legal deer in the NW corner and only then if every possible tag were exhausted, public and private including all implements. I don't think there is a huge risk of that happening with any regularity.

Conversely, predators know no boundaries or limits and will kill all year, day and night, no mercy....sometimes just to kill for the sake of killing. Therein lies the quandary with your method of not killing predators to protect or booster another resource. When you have all these new hands in the cookie jar, the cookies are gonna get real scarce real soon.

Bobcats are bears shouldn't be viewed as hands in the cookie jar, they should be viewed as cookies. I have heard of wolves possibly killing for for fun, but do you have evidence that any natural predators in CT are out killing deer just for the sake of killing and walking away from the meat, or are you making that up?

My point is we can either use resources to try to make the DEEP to change the laws, or forget about the DEEP and use those resources to convince hunters to start thinking differently. I think the latter is more valuable than the former. I would rather see the Bob Crooks of the world trying to change how hunters think rather than trying to change how DEEP or legislators think.

And Toonces, I guess guys should SSS to handle the bear and bobcats with your thought process if the DEEP won't impose a season. Most of the bow hunters here want the herd to rebound. Bears, bobcats and coyotes are now replacing hunters as a means to reduce deer. They need to be managed.

No my point is that hunters should view the possibility of bear hunting as a new cool animal to be able to hunt, not a means to protect the deer.

Of course your right though, it is theoretical until a bear or bobcat season is in place. I am not suggesting SSS. I am just suggesting that we should support a bear or bobcat season not as a management opportunity but as a hunting opportunity.

We have to be consistent. If we don't want to be viewed or used as population control for deer, we can't position ourselves as population control for bears.

We already screwed up how the public and DEEP views our roles with regard to deer. I am suggesting we not make the same mistake with bears.

I think in the future when you post about "potential take" you should be very precise in your wording as to preclude a misinterpretation of something than is possible to do versus something that has in fact already been done.

A landowner in NW CT purchasing every available deer tage CAN (in theory) take as many as 10 deer. In reality that number can be anywhere from 10 to 0. I understood what you meant as I'm sure Toonces did but evidently it wasn't as obvious as you may have believed when you initially posted it.

Toonces,

We've been on the same page with regard to hunters painting themselves into a corner by offering themselves as a "management tool." I hope it has not escaped the notice of some who feel that is the way to go that there were 2 of the 12 DMZ's excluded from Sunday hunting as the targeted management goal was already surpassed for those zones.

It should go without saying that the remaining zones can suffer the same fate if the same target is met. From there it is also not unreasonable to suggest similar restrictions on take could be imposed as we (hunters) have put ourselves into a position where we do not argue for expanded hunting opportunities based on a desire to hunt but rather for "management."

Agree 100% on your comments to bear; it could kill 2 birds with one stone if you will. Bear can be pretty good eating and if you know good people you can do a lot with a bear hide.

thanks for the clarification. I sometimes post from my phone, and it's not the best way to do it. I have enough problems from my computer:)

That is a HUGE if!!!!

I'm a big fan of closing the barn door while the horses are still in the barn......

Out of curiosity; do you know what the target dpsm number is? (I do)

8^)