Bowsite.com

On a more serious note, I have seen more deer this year than most, however many were does with fawns early in the season that I couldn't bring myself to shoot. Had a 6 and 8 point in bow range, but no good shot was available so I watched them walk away. Missed several potentially good Saturday mornings during the prime time so I could go pheasant hunting with my son. We had a great time together and a I made a couple new friends while doing so, so it's all good. Still plan to get out several more times before the end of December, so I am not ready to call it a season just yet. If I do have to eat my tag, at least I will be able to cook it in some pheasant broth...

Saw deer much more frequently than the last three years combined.

As long as the harvest numbers keep going down and guys keep passing does, we'll have some really good deer in the years ahead.....and easy winters help too.

Due to two foot surgeries and medical treatments, I haven't even got my permission slips signed. It looks like I'll be out for at least another month at best. Can't even drive nor walk.

Saw deer early in the season and then it trailed off. As long as I see deer on SOME outings I'm happy, so a fair rating is just based upon seeing big bucks and having close encounters.

I am always content - never disappointed

Your comments bear serious reflection; what is going on? If you followed the Kill report thread you'd have noticed that after a great start we're now lagging behind 2015's total. On the surface that shouldn't be and in fact we should be crushing 2015's numbers.

Let's look at the odds for a great year; the winter of 2015 was not only almost snow-less but unseasonably warm. We also had a phenomenal acorn crop to provide ample forage for the winter, aided by the lack of the deer needing to dig through snow for them. In short, we had, on the surface a recipe for one hell of a 2016 season.

Unlike the fall of 2015 this year's fall did not suffer from the almost every weekend a wash-out rain event and we sure as heck didn't suffer through the abnormally warm temperatures. In a nutshell we had the deck heavily stacked in our favor for crushing, absolutely crushing last year's numbers if not record harvest numbers.

So again, what happened?

I'm pretty sure a number of posters know the answer; you can't kill what isn't there. Numbers don't lie and these numbers tell a pretty clear story. The question is what do we do about it? We can always carry on as per usual and in some areas where the loss of deer isn't as pronounced get by for a few more seasons. The harsh reality is our chickens are coming home to roost. Years of unrelenting doe take are coming home to roost.

We can take the lead here and do some serious self-regulation. We do hold that power; to take only what is needed and to start shooting a lot fewer does.

In closing as a point to ponder; for those of you with an interest in keeping tabs on the weather it appears we're in for a double-whammy of a lot more snow (I've seen estimates of 80-90") and as you'll see beginning mid-week next week it's going to be a lot colder this winter than last. In short, not a good winter for deer.

Proceed with caution folks.......

To answer Steve, DEEP regulations are providing hunters more than ample opportunity to kill deer; I’d say that over a decade of 4.5 months of archery hunting annually, unlimited tags, bait, and now crossbows has taken a toll on the suburban deer herd, likely halved it or more, which was the intention. Last year was a pretty low harvest and because I am a numbers guy and DEEP tracks this stuff, I looked at the numbers DEEP provided for 9/15/16 - 11/30/16 (http://www.ct.gov/deep/lib/deep/hunting_trapping/pdf_files/ReportedHarvest.pdf) and compared those to the 2015 Deer Program Summary numbers for all towns in Fairfield County. I realize last year was a bad one and that guys aren’t pleased with the reporting system, but that has not changed from last year. Also, the reporting is different between the two and the only reporting column that was consistent was archery. So these numbers are for archery take for all towns in Fairfield County for 9/15/16-11/30/16 as compared to 9/15/15-1/31/16. So the reporting for this season was for the first 76 days of archery hunting and already take has surpassed (or is the same as) the total 2015 archery take for many towns, specifically: Bethel, Bridgeport, Brookfield, Easton, Monroe, New Canaan, New Fairfield, Shelton, Sherman, Stratford, and Westport. And in total, there were just 123 more deer taken in FF County in 138 days of archery hunting in the 2015 season than were taken in 76 days in 2016. We could look at deer taken per calendar days: 2015 = 8.4 deer/day, so far, 2016 = 13.6 deer/day. While I do not disagree deer numbers are down statewide, it is clear that 2016 archery take in FF County will be higher than it was in 2015.

The whining about there not being enough deer or not enough big deer really has to stop. We are starting to sound like a bunch of millennials where our only safe space is in a tree stand watching a daily parade of 120 inch bucks.

Who scores bucks anyway? Is that still a thing?

How many guys on here passed numerous opportunities? I know I did.

I love when I hear "the land can't support the deer". Well then, let's make the land better for the deer and then we can have more deer around. It's the long-gone days of backwards thinking of killing more deer because the land doesn't support them......let's create better habitat.

If you pay attention to what they say, once in a while what they really mean comes out. If they could bring us northern New England numbers and yet continue selling lots of licenses and tags, they're happy. They admit that their deer density goal on State Land is 20 deer psm, yet they're working hard to continue to cut it well below that on private land in much of the state. Look at the issue of Fawn Recruitment, the observations and the research suggest a problem, has a solution been put in place?

It pains me to say this but, I don't know one serious deer hunter that has faith in the integrity of the DEEP biologists as far as deer numbers are concerned. Look at the self appointed expert who loves to chime in here, speaking (unofficially of course) on behalf of the state. He'll point out that there are tons of deer out there, "you guys just don't know how to find them". Yeah, that makes sense. I can find deer in Sherman, Greenwich, Putnam County NY (and other states), but in Redding I just forget what they look like. If it was just me, maybe they'd be right. But I talk to a bunch of experienced hunters, as well as non hunting property owners, the fact that they are all seeing far fewer deer, is irrelevant to the biologists. The biggest BS line I have heard recently was used to explain why the fenced deer proof enclosures showed the same level,of browsing inside as out: "an abundant acorn crop means that the deeer don't have to eat the plants around it".

Until hunters take it upon ourselves to limit our take, the numbers will stay low, they'll continue to issue unlimited/ too many tags.

How many times has Doc said that we hunters just want unsustainable numbers? They don't speak for me, and I'll keep saying it. The goals of (some folks at the) the DEEP are different than mine.

My season has been great in terms of enjoyment. In terms of deer numbers seen, in person and on camera, those numbers are way down.

IMHO I fully believe that to rejuvenate the herd here to late 90's levels of maybe 20dpsm there needs to be an established bear hunting and bobcat trapping season, and pause for two years of no deer hunting or three years of just one tag a year. I would make that sacrifice.

now they are still there but you have to hunt them....not so easy ....you gotta work for one...

Chas, we are all in agreement there are fewer deer statewide than there once were like 10 years ago. No one is denying this. DEEP completely agrees with this. Their management goal is not and never was to recreate the unsustainable densities of last decade as it seems you think they should be doing. As far as Redding, I gave you guys all the locations of deer I saw from the air, multiple times. I know guys are seeing deer in Redding because in 2014, 156 were reported killed by hunters despite all the White Buffalo drama. And that is about half the harvest of what it was in the heyday with a DEEP estimated 60 deer/square mile. And what results did DEEP and CAES repeatedly come back with for Redding during all this drama? Uncorrected densities of 30 deer/square mile. I think you need to find a new hunting spot in Redding. I think that is the answer instead of blaming DEEP, me, the tick study, Dave Streit, etc.

“The biggest BS line I have heard recently was used to explain why the fenced deer proof enclosures showed the same level,of browsing inside as out. . .” I think you mean deer exclosures to keep deer out, right? Enclosures keep them in. And if they truly are deer proof fences as you say, how can you be seeing deer browse damage on vegetation both inside and out?

Chas was complaining that he can't find any deer in Redding. Other guys found 157 deer in Redding in 2014 and despite a tough season, harvested 110 in 2015. My point is that Chas needs to find new hunting grounds in Redding because other guys are killing deer and he isn't. Complaining on this site isn't helping his cause. And a point to be made is I'm not killing the FF County deer, and DEEP is not killing the FF County deer, you guys are. So who is to blame?

You guys have a vastly deeper set of data points so my advice is to stop beating your heads against the wall with an endless, circular "debate" and act on what you know to be true; as many of you have advocated don't let the arrow fly at everything that passes under your stand; that is 100% within your control. We can self-police and don't need to be told it's time to dial it down; that's patently obvious to a good number of the posters here.

If you want to argue about something that will make a difference take the comments made by grizzlyadam to heart; start arguing with DEEP for a bear season and at minimum trapping for bobcat and fishers, but push for hunting those predators too.

Knock down the predators and practice a bit of self-discipline and the deer herd will be fine. It's good to see so many posting about shooting fewer deer; spread the word folks and everybody wins.

Chas, I am merely offering a perspective that differs from most on this site, but is consistent with looking at deer hunters collectively as DEEP does instead of every man for himself. I would counter that it is you making yourself look foolish in insisting there are no deer left in Redding when the DEEP take numbers clearly demonstrate that there are.

Mike, there is a trapping season on fisher already, 11/20-12/31 limit of 4. I am sure bobcat is soon to come. You should see all the bobcat photos we have from the 30+ game cameras we have up in backyards throughout Redding. A handful of bear photos too and some slammer backyard bucks.

With DEEP not willing to make changes or lower doe take, baiting or the late January season the problem will only get worse. Hunters throughout CT have the ability to change what the DEEP will not, by not harvesting does and concentrating on "bucks only" we can assure a good future for CT hunters for years to come.

Glen, "This year I have scene the least number of deer in the last 45 years hunting Zone 11 FC (Fairfield County)."

So why do you bother hunting there? Doesn't it make sense to go where the deer are?

Makes sense with hunters taking full advantage of 4.5 months of archery hunting per year, baiting, crossbows, unlimited anterless tags, etc. Maybe my math is off, but the first legal deer hunting season was in 1975, 41 years ago right?

There's nothing wrong with your math; check what Glen wrote though and you'll note he refers to "hunting", not deer hunting. Small game hunting in CT predates deer hunting. It should go without saying that one may encounter other animals while hunting grouse or squirrel in the woods.

To this day the biggest buck I've ever seen in CT was on a day I was squirrel hunting in Harwinton with my father-in-law. I jumped him in his bed and he stood up no more than 20 yards from me-couldn't have missed him if I tried, but a)no deer tag and b)I doubt the #8 shot I had for squirrels would have done more than annoy him.....

In one breath you say hunters can't bring deer levels down effectively and the next you post that it seems about right that deer levels are low since hunters have such liberal seasons to keep killing.

Wasn't there bowhunting before the first legalized gun hunting season in CT....I believe so.

If you can't play nice and offer good suggestions about archery hunting.....can you even shoot a bow......have you helped anyone less fortunate than you....have you offered anything that makes anyone a better hunter or person....

Tired act.

And as an update to the failed tick study (unless you're WB) the CDC reported an increase in the incidence of lyme disease in 2015 even though Doc had his good friend Tony get big money to kill lots of deer,.........and lyme disease went up. Wait, did I mention that lyme disease went up, if I failed to do that then let me say lyme disease went up. And in the same article it states that the scientific community states the increase in lyme disease is due to,......wait for it,......."CLIMATE CHANGE" Gotta love those liberals!!

EASTON-REDDING-WESTON, CT — According to a recent report by the Center for Disease Control (CDC), cases of Lyme disease in 2015 have increased.

Bloodtrail. Hunters can get deer down to densities they consider to be low, around 30-35 deer/square mile. That is about where densities are in FF County and as Glen said, might be the lowest in 45 years. From a blacklegged tick, gardener, vehicle collision, and ecosystem health perspective, 35 deer/square mile is still very high and conflicts with the public will still readily exist. Now because deer in CT are owned by the public of CT and not just CT hunters, DEEP have been asked to manage deer for the public majority of which hunters are not. I will stand by my previous statements that hunters very rarely, if ever, can get deer densities below 35 in residential areas. It’s been a while since I have shot a compound bow, though I did shoot a crossbow a few weeks ago. And I routinely shoot fiberglass longbows with my kids in the yard during the summer. I shoot guns a lot though. And if you haven’t discovered Tannerite, it is loads of fun. Shove a 20 ounce Coke bottle full of it into a 15 pound pumpkin and see what happens. . . . I consider myself pretty fortunate, and sure I help people less fortunate than I.

You made an interesting statement though - "many factors in play beyond us killing a handful of ticks on 30 properties." When you kill the deer, where do the ticks go? Are they harvested off the deer and killed? Or, do they go on their merry way to re-infest some other deer or person???? Hmmmm?

You want the Staten Island project to fail and really hope it doesn't work so hunting will be the only "solution." Say what you want about WB, but those guys, maybe 3 of them, have darted and sterilized 470 male deer since September. Numbers like that are going to have an impact. You can cross your fingers and bad mouth the project, but that's a lot of sterile bucks.

To answer your question, because 90% of female deer ticks in our area get their final blood meal from deer, if the deer aren't there, they will seek other hosts. However, the majority of them will fail to get their final bloodmeal, will not have any energy reserves, and will die before laying eggs.

if it will help I'll post a Celtic women Christmas video........

Please return to regularly scheduled program:)

Checking my cams this weekend if it looks like rain is coming in. Have 3 weeks undisturbed.