Bowsite.com

The State of Connecticut has lost 60% + of its deer population in the last 10 years. With the CT DEEP unwilling to lower deer take numbers, it is up to hunters to guarantee the future of deer hunting in CT. By targeting bucks and letting does walk you are helping to secure a viable population of deer for yourself and future generations to come.

What drives me bonkers is when guys complain about having a tough season, and yet they have and still shoot does....can't fix stupid.

Lastly, and hopefully obviously, if you take a doe you're more than likely taking out 3 deer in total; the doe plus the fawns she might have produced for the following year.

Contrary to what some seem to think the deer herd is a finite resource; treat it like one and we'll have it for a good many years to come.

Here's an excerpt some might find interesting from the link:

"This year marks the 100th anniversary of the passenger pigeon’s extinction. In the intervening years, researchers have agreed that the bird was hunted out of existence, victimized by the fallacy that no amount of exploitation could endanger a creature so abundant."

Anyone who wishes to continue good contributions to a great topic, please feel free to continue.

Hopefully the peanut gallery will have the good sense to fade away quietly.

Mature bucks only for me. Been that way for years and will continue. That's a renewable resource plan.

Bob, comparing an overly abundant, highly-regulated, modern-day wildlife resource like deer to the demise of the passenger pigeon from 3 centuries ago before game laws existed is stupid.

I've witnessed the handy work. The state cut down tons of white and red oaks to rescue the cottontail. Funny thing about it is that the place that they tried to save the cottontails has ALWAYS been loaded with cottontails for the 17 years I've hunted it.

Sometimes I think all of this is a bunch of cow manure.

So you're saying over hunting a species 3 centuries (incorrect) ago is different than over hunting a species today,....how? Oh yeah, that's right, we're so much smarter today!!

Here's how smart we are today. At least 20 years ago several hunters besides myself complained to the DEP that the deer herd in the NW corner of CT was in serious decline, they told us to learn how to find deer!

Now in recent years the DEEP finally decides the deer herd in the NW corner is dangerously low and decides to do a fawn mortality study. How much longer do you think it will take the DEEP to realize the harvest rate should be reduced in that area?? Let's see what they do.

And why did they need to re-stock turkey in CT 40 years ago? Did we over hunt those? What about eastern elk? Yeah, the people managing the wildlife make mistakes too. They're not perfect.

Buckiller. The Feds are trying to increase the abundance of NE cottontails so they do not need to list them on the endangered species list. So your spot sounds like a habitat improvement success. Imagine if they were listed, that would be the end of rabbit hunting altogether.

All it takes is the right set of circumstances as evidence provided (and by the way those aren't the only examples) proved.

What is stupid is the usual dodge when facts prove inconvenient and the usual trolling and trashing of threads that dare to suggest hunters can be proactive in maintaining a resource.

Par for the course so no one here should have been surprised.

The point (and I really doubt it went over your head) was that the issue was not as cut-and-dried as you tried to cast it.

What's heartening is the number of responses indicating those who actually know about conserving a resource get it; I'm getting a strong feeling someone here might need to brush up on Santayana.

Now, as it's the 15th I'll extend my best wishes for success as each of you define it and above all, be safe out there!

Please stop trying to conflate different meanings; any renewable resource that can pass out of existence is a finite, not infinite resource.

Again, as with extinction the only person here who has referred to deer as a non-renewable resource is you (see post above); I have only referred to them as a finite resource so please do try to quote me with accuracy for a change.

Try being gracious and walking away instead of showing everyone what you've already demonstrated ad infinitum, ad naseaum; you can be a quite petty when the urge strikes you.

Now if I were I might point out that your 3 centuries ago "rebuttal" is wrong no matter how you slice it; the 19th century was 2 centuries ago, not 3 (we're in the 21st century currently).

If we go by years its been approximately 121 years since they disappeared from the wild which would be 1.21 centuries as measured in years.

Of course when state employees can double wildlife populations with the stroke of a pen it shouldn't shock anyone that they feel the same way about creating time that's not there either.....

Is he seriously trying to make the case that these terms are mutually exclusive? If they are not finite, that would make them infinite, I guess that's his point. Sometimes I wonder if he really has even a single clue.

Attached is a link to Wikipedia about “finite resources” if you two care to educate yourselves.

Here we have Dr. Williams actually telling the truth; In 2013/2014 he multiplied the deer count in the CAES study in Redding, CT by 3.5x or 350% in the two test areas, in 2015 he used 4X or 400% over the actual Davis Aviation FLIR survey and signed the report not having ever scene the FLIR film. Two wildlife FLIR survey companies that reviewed the Davis film called the review and report on the Davis FLIR film both " Clarvoant and a Fraud ".

This thread is about " Targeting bucks and letting does Walk "; not passenger pigeons and coal mining ..........please try and stay on topic.

1890's-19th century (1) 1990's-20th century (2) 2090's-21st century (3)

Pretty sure it's just 2016 so you're about 80 years shy of a 3-century span on 100 year increments.

Well, unless your century is less than 100 years....

I see you are still struggling as well with English comprehension; if something is not infinite is therefore by definition finite. Period, end of story.

Oh, and I have never in my life doubled my white-tailed deer count data.

Interesting; seeing as I said "some state employees" and "they" you'd have to assume I meant you. In the first place Scott, everything isn't always about you and in the second it makes me wonder if that was a prickle of conscience.

On the plus side it would be refreshing to learn that you might have one.

Just curious; if you're in a crowded bar and some guy walks in and yells "hey a-hole" do you automatically assume he's talking to you?

Regarding Glen's coordinate snafu; most here will recall he immediately owned up to his error, the kind of thing men do. Others lacking that type of core principle just obfuscate, spin, distort or when all else fails just plain lie.

Your numbers mean nothing without proof.

Funny you should mention that; ironically Glen's numbers from Vision Air were actually confirmed by Davis; that is when his film was reviewed by experts and the count they generated was accurate. Ironically that accurate rendering was just under the numbers for Vision Air.

And of course how can we forget all those months of claims about Chris Siburn seeing 36 deer at Pheasant Ridge? I guess he reached the point where he'd had enough of that nonsense and went on record here as stating he only saw 10-12. So again, to Glen's point you were being truthful about never doubling your counts. You tripled them in that instance.

Of course if you ever bothered to review the film you'd have already figured out it was smoke and mirrors. Surprising that you haven't as you consistently claim to be an ethical scientist and all.

Educate you Scott? That would be highly unlikely; it's impossible to enlighten the unconscious.

Prattle on lad, do prattle on.

Let's make it simple for dumb/stupid hunters like me.

If we have 100 deer left in the entire world and there's no hunting allowed and they breed at a rate 2X per year, is that an infinite/renewable resource? Sounds like you said yes, right?

But wait!! If we allow hunting of those 100 deer and we allow hunters to shoot as many as they want, are they still infinite/renewable? Even if they kill all 100? I know it's impossible to kill all 100, UNLESS your good friend Tony does it :)

BTW - how's the state doing managing ruffed grouse or the deer population in the NW corner. Not renewing too well, are they. Mismanagement of game species in recent times is here, no need to go back to passenger pigeons Doc. Are they extinct, no, but they're not being managed either.

Therefore - I will only shoot mature bucks.

Are you REALLY asking why Mike said "if you take a doe you're MORE THAN LIKELY taking out 3 deer in total, the doe plus the fawns."

Damn, even a dumb, stupid hunter like myself can understand that you're killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

How are those ruffed grouse doing in CT. Are they being well managed? I haven't seen or heard one in years.

When's that last time you heard a Whippoorwill early morning or in the evening during the spring? Not even a game species, so management has nothing to do with it.

Don't know why I even replied to this thread, but got sucked in.....I'm out now:)

By the way, to stick to the original topic of this post, I'm with Toonces on this one. I will target what comes by me in range and what I feel like shooting. I don't get to spend much time afield so I have to make do to put one in the freezer. Going on my 30th year of bowhunting and I always have at least 2 of my archery tags to spare at the end of the season. Okay...now I'm out

If you want Too Many of one, you're going to have to accept Not Enough of the other.

No managed game species has ever gotten into trouble - what killed off the bison, the passenger pigeon, eastern Elk, and very nearly the whitetail was unregulated market hunting. All of the whining and hysteria over the decline of whitetails from disastrously high levels to sustainable or even temporarily sub-optimal levels is just that - whining and hysteria. In the event that the deer population should get seriously low, the managers will figure it out and things can be restored. Might take 20 years, but this is a long-term proposition.

Those who fought to get game laws established a century ago would have to laugh, cry, or spit up listening to this. They FOUGHT for tight regulations so that WE, who happened along so many years down the line, would have enough deer (and other animals) that we could be allowed to hunt a few. Somewhere along the line, the idea arose that we should be allowed to shoot as many as we want, and it all hit the fan as a result.

I guess - coming from a state where you never used to be able to buy more than one tag per species per year - I just see things differently. But let's allow CWD or something to hit as a result of all of the feeding/ baiting and overcrowding, and let's let the population implode to where all of the deer tags are 1 per year and by lottery only, and THEN I'll take some of this seriously.

NW corner is tough. I get it. Hunted there a couple years and I cant't disagree with anyone up there who lets a doe walk. Farther south, I will let does walk when I start seeing understory again.

Now that's funny. :)

Anyhow, I hope more hunters pass on does until the state starts opening their eyes and adjusts the tagging system.

I agree that this whole argument is based upon perception. Not enough deer for me may be just right for you. My frustration stems from the DEP ignoring the comments of concerned sportsmen years ago about the deer herd in the NW corner. I pleaded for less tags, or bucks only but was told I didn't know what was going on, even though there were no tracks in the snow where there was once highway of trails.

Years later the scientists finally get the picture and declare a crisis and start conducting fawn mortality surveys. I can find deer and anyone who has gone in the woods with me knows this to be true. I've taken several young or inexperienced hunters to places and told them when and where the deer would come from. Some go shots, others got deer.

I know nothing about the SW area, but I have to give some weight to what other hunters are saying who hunter that area, otherwise I would be just like the DEP officials that ignored my comments years ago.

I don't consider this whining or complaining, but rather concerned, passionate hunters who want a certain level of enjoyment from their sport. It may be different than mine, but they have the right to express their view.

And why do people think that the state only manages game species?? They manage all forms of wildlife. That's why they can stop a developer from disturbing wetlands where non-game species thrive. So if it's striped bass, piper plovers, blade eagles, turtles or NW corner whitetails, they own all of the results.

Bloodtrail, DEEP is managing forests on a small scale, but due to lack of state funding and reduced manpower, certainly not for fear of creating more deer habitat. Early successional habitat benefits way more than just deer. Like I was saying earlier, now there is federal money to create NE cottontail habitat which entails clear cutting averages 50-100 acres mostly to overwhelm deer with regeneration so there is some regenerational success.

Any idea why DEEP doesn't leverage private citizens to help them create successional habitat in state forests? Seems to me all they would need to do is issue permits to cut firewood in certain areas.

All DEEP would need to do is mark the areas to be cut and monitor the progress.

When I was growing up my home town cleared land for a two full public parks, including soccer and baseball fields by letting private citizens go in and harvest the wood. I know because I was there a lot with my dad helping him load wood into the truck.

Just seems like it should be easy to do and cost effective, a no brainer. What is preventing them from doing that.

Seems under utilized as a management tool to me.

The state forest I have been hunting for the last 20 years or so has seen no cutting at all.

I agree. I used to participate in the state cutting program, but it was so limited it became more a burden than a help.

The program in place for the rabbits is limited to certain areas of the state....not in all state forests. And yes, the by-product of these cuts will benefit the deer too.

What you don't see is the cutting that took place on state lands like you saw in the late 70's, 80's and 90's. There were multiple areas in Salmon River State forest and Cockaponset where I hunted that this was done and the hunting was pretty darn good from it. If the state would simply manage the forests and sell some lumber everyone would benefit.

You can already see the food salad created by good Ole Malloy on every highway in the state. All those trees he had removed are now lush with browse and cover.

Lastly, it's interesting that you seem to think guys want to kill a whole bunch of deer (Guys here "only" shooting 3 deer a season and complaining)....I think the other post by GF would show you that a lot of us bow hunters only want opportunities to take 1-2 deer a year. Thanks for listening.

I wasn't insinuating that you said to pay for wood. It was to let others understand that you can't just walk into a state forest and cut a few trees down....there's a process and fees associated with it.

Thanks.

Too bad they both weren't legal - Nice shot placement on both (assuming momma was close to the stand)...

For some reason the DEEP has failed to make this law more readily accessible to hunters in their hunting guides, where it should be.

I didn't know about until recently and I have been deer hunting in CT for over 30 years.

Notme.....thank you for posting how easy it was to find.

I remember. You were the first one to bring it to my attention. Prior to that I did not know there was a law against killing spotted fawns.

P.S. i will say that a few years back i watched a doe feed for about 45 minutes making her way to me and i shot her. After recovery i saw that she was lactating and made me feel like crap. I never saw a fawn otherwise I wouldn't have shit her.

I once shot a mature doe in early December, (which had no other deer with her), that was full of milk. I think sometimes the youngins just keep nursing until the doe stops them, even though they are also eating solid food.

But the only reason to let Spot walk is political - Susie Homemaker doesn't want the kiddies to see Bambi strapped to the hood. So it's less of an issue now that we are no longer required to transport the animals in open view, but good luck changing the law on it.

Ethical? Every other predator preys on the young and stupid, so why can't we? If you don't care to, then don't, but MAN are they good eating! Easy to get out of the woods, too!

Of course, the last time I tagged one was last day of ML season 1999.... If I'm going to all that trouble, I'd rather get a few more pounds out of the effort..

Absolutely zero reason to kill a fawn...unless you have to if you have crop damage. And then you are an exterminator.....not hunting related. The other reason might be if you are a young hunter and its your first deer.

Let's let a few of those big does walk this year and we might see a few more deer in years to come. Everyone shoot straight!