CT Deer Harvest Totals for 2017
Connecticut
CT DEEP, deer harvest numbers 12,377 ending 12/31 showed an increase in 2017; the one exception was Zone 1 (1.8 dpsm) which showed a decrease in harvest by 11.3%. Zone 4B came in at 4.0 dpsm, Zone 5 came in second with 3.5 dpsm. Zone 9 and 10 were both 3.3 dpsm. Zone 8 was 3.1 dpsm and Zones 11 & 12 averaged 2.7 dpsm.
It maybe time for the CT DEEP to re-evaluate unlimited replacement doe tags, baiting and the extended January season in Zone 11 & 12 and limited doe take in Zone 1.
Where are you getting that from? I can’t find it on the DEEP website.
Arrow,, all you have to do is control the tags it takes care of everything you mentioned. I like to go on Sunday because I work most Saturday I like to bait because it increase my chances of bring deer to my property ,so If I could only shot 1 doe and 1 buck it wouldn't mater how much time I spent watching deer . What was the kill in Redding? I didn't spend much time there this year but had some nice shooters on camera . Steve
If all the hunters that are so worried about the tags numbers shot one deer everything would be fine. Just because you get so many tags does not mean you have to use them....I cant remember a year I shot more than 2....
the numbers are up because of acorns....every year there are less acorns more deer are killed....they had a graph with it one year...I am sure Dr Williams has it...
also numbers would of been way down this year if we had a bumper acorn crop because of the wind and hot weather...then the sky really would of really been falling....
If the deer harvest is already down by 11% in zone 1, no need to decrease the tag allocation. Hunters are already taking less deer.
10:11. Wait, what? In the past on this site you have used decreased harvest numbers to criticize DEEP and declare that they need to decrease tag allotment because the herd has been “decimated.” Now you are saying the same thing using increased harvest numbers? That doesn’t make any sense. Additionally, I am not sure where these numbers came from, but how can you suggest DEEP re-evaluate the January season in 11 and 12 when these data don’t even include the January season as there is still 3 weeks left in the season? And comparing harvest density between zones is not even remotely a scientific justification for altering management strategies. If these numbers are correct, it stands to reason that harvest/land area in 11 and 12 would be lower and zone 4b would be highest. 4b is one of the smallest zones consisting of 6 rural towns where there is lots of room to hunt. Zone 11 is all of Fairfield County and 12 is the entire Shoreline, where the majority of that state’s population resides and where hunting access is limited therefore, harvest density will be diluted.
Dr Williams....where can we find an Acorn tracker ? Is there any place to monitor during or before the season?
The graph shown above relies at best on estimated numbers, averages. There is no acorn tracker source, just a perception on mast production given few monitored areas, perhaps. We know that trees can produce more or less mast in the same given year, while on average the mast production is higher. Same with deer as the numbers are supported by hunter reports which do not guarantee 100% accuracy. Who is to say that hunters did not OVER or UNDER reported? Is there a trend showing increased reporting in December and January when we all know it is harder to hunt? How is poaching reflected in the final numbers? Perhaps current economic conditions push many to reduce food expenses or increase their income by over hunting with or without a license. How is that quantified?
As stated before by another hunter, regardless of allocated tag numbers and legal methods of increasing deer sighting, it is up to each hunter to make a decision on how many and what kind (male vs. female, young vs. old) of deer to take. I hope you realize that now you also have to think of future implications of your own individual actions. If majority of hunters reduce the number of deer taken home each season perhaps towns and state lose faith in hunter ability to control deer population and can justify spending money to achieve the same goal using other resources. If the majority of hunters take home as many deer as legally allowed then deer herd declines leading to future decrease in hunters interest in hunting CT, thus taking their resources to another state which in turn allows for herd recovery over time. You will then experience most likely bust and boom cycles. I am surely just skimming the surface as there are many other variables not accounted for in my simplified explanation.
Someone once said to me that the there no empty spaces in nature. I say to those hunters who are seeing large numbers of deer enjoy hunting and trim the herd sensibly. To those hunters who are not seeing the number or the quality deer in their hunt areas to be very selective and satisfied with less deer taken home. We are all facing difficult decisions but please remember that hunting is 99% preparation and 1% kills from time usage point of view. When you find joy in fine tuning your weapon of choice, continuously honing your shooting skills, increasing your knowledge of nature by observation, improve plus exercise your shot placement patience, the 10 seconds or less before the final shot are just the cherry at the top of the cake. I am trying to emphasize the need to be 99% happy – satisfied with preparing for success and be grateful - humble when 1% of the time you get the cherry. This approach to hunting, even without a final shot on every outing, yields enough personal satisfaction to keep a hunter going forward. Learn to find and identify other forest resources as you hunt. Recognize trees by their leaf, fruit or bark, edible and poisonous plants, find mushrooms, turn a log and see the insects under. It is not hard to enjoy the hunt and attain knowledge if you look for it. Most hunters on this forum are old enough to understand that need for instant gratification is a disease which has the same effects as hard drugs. Fight the urge and pass the hunting passion to younger hunter generation.
Zone 1 is not down11% because hunters have decide to let deer walk. It's because there are fewer deer to shoot. The hunters on this site are but a small fraction, and mean single digit, of the total hunting population in this state. The hunters that I run into shoot any deer that crosses their path, so I wish Toonces was correct and that hunters were using restraint, but I think that's the farthest thing from the truth.
12:30. My friend Mike Gregonis at DEEP in Franklin has been doing regional mast surveys since 2007. He has 25 red oaks and 25 white oaks in each of the 12 deer management zones. End of August each year, he does a crown survey at each tree and compiles the data. The image above the orange line is his hard data and the blue line is the hunter survey data from the end of the season. They line up pretty well. He wants people to use the data and I bet he would share the info with you if you contacted him in the beginning of September.
Bob, You are right about most hunters these days shooting anything they see ! Zone 2 which has been under doe restrictions for the past several years showed an increase in their 2017 harvest by 31.5% over last years harvest. The DEEP could do the same thing in Zone 1; but they want the numbers to remain low. Talking with several COs two years ago I was told that the DEEP goal is 1 deer per hunter per year; by the look of it they are getting close with only 1 in 5 licensed hunters actually harvesting deer in CT.
Doc......Maybe you could post the results from the - Guilford, East River Preserve shoot this year ?
The point of reducing tags is to reduce the amount of deer killed. If that is already happening there is no need to reduce the number of tags. It doesn't matter why hunters are taking less deer, it just matters they are.
What if last year the tags had been reduced. Would we now be celebrating a 11% harvest reduction as good management? It is still the same reduction either way.
Dr your right I think about Mike the few times I have spoken with him seems helpful and Willing to talk about studies he's done .
Mike is a super nice guy and a huge advocate of sportsmen and women. 6 deer taken on East River Preserve this year.
Toonces _ I have to disagree. Let me exaggerate to make a point. If area 1 has a million acres and has just 10 deer and only 5 are harvested you could argue that the harvest is low so that's a good thing. The problem with this is there were 10,000 hunters trying to get a deer in area 1, so saying it's a good thing is not true at all.
The herd is too low, on the verge of being wiped out, so limits should be established that say you can only take buck with an antler spread wider than their ears, or some other limiting regulation.
Toonces - “ The point of reducing tags is to reduce the amount of deer killed. “ Actually the the point of reducing tags is to increase deer numbers. We are talking about “doe” reduction in Zone 1 not overall tags. By harvesting less does in Zone 1 deer are able to stabilize and increase their numbers over several seasons. The statement on Zones 11 & 12 is about eliminating unlimited doe tags.
Interesting chart, Doc.. definitely looks like a decent correlation between hunter observations and the data.
bob...the herd is not on the verg of being wiped out.....I hunted northwest Ontario and the herd did get wiped out by winter and wolves 3 years in a row....Now in areas that had great deer there is nothing.....you dont see deer or tracks or rubs or any sign what so ever....now in three years of mild winters....the herd is coming back.....the DNR did not eliminate tags...hunters stopped going ....the wolves moved on as well....
C'mon bob antler spread, some guys couldnt figure out the slot limit on stripers years ago..that only lasted one season.
Bob,
The tags are irrelevant. The actual number of deer killed is what matters.
If you got your way last year and the regulations were changed and there was a decreased harvest of 11% in zone 1 presumably you would think that is a good thing. But the same decrease of 11% without a change of regulations is a bad thing. Maybe I am simpleton, but I don't get it.
10:07. While Zone 1 harvest seems to be down, and we all know Bob hunts Zone 1, this year is the 4th highest harvest over the past decade. In the graph above, I took the liberty of adding 200 to the 2017 total that Glen provided to account for January 2018 season take. (January take was 196 in 2017.) Nothing has changed as far as tags since 2015, yet harvest increased by nearly 40%.
Also, for Zone 11 and 12 average harvest density for 2016 was 2.4 harvested deer/square mile (2,680 harvested deer over 1107 square miles). So reporting that in the 2017 season, not including January archery take, that harvest averaged 2.7 dpsm is quite an increase from 2016 and from 2015 as well. Harvests have been increasing over the past 3 years with no change in regulations. So how does that justify removing the replacement antlerless tagging system? That just doesn’t make management sense. And for Zone 1, DEEP is aware of the issue there and is addressing it through biological studies.
Dr Williams...why such a dip in 2015.....I know acorns were abundant ....is that it? I cant remember the season
Do we know the # of deer hunting licenses issued over the same 10 year period? My guess would be its gone down slightly but that is just a guess.
Jax - my "example" stated the herd was on the verge of being wiped out. The current herd in the NW is not!! I stated I was exaggerating to make a point, sorry for the confusion.3
Toonces - saying tags are irrelevant is saying we don't need tags at all then. Let nature take it's course is what you're saying. Less harvest = less deer to harvest. Do you really think that's a good way to manage the herd? Continue to allow 4 tags until the herd is so low that hardly any deer are killed when compared to past years? I don't!
Doc - yes, zone 1 harvest is down, AGAIN. Also, 4 years in a row of decreasing kill and 2 years of increasing is a positive sign, we can agree on that.
Bob,
But again, the harvest decreased last year. Are you saying that the harvest did not decrease enough?
Would you be ok with a 20% decrease in harvest with the tags remaining the same? 30%? What is the decrease in harvest that would make you happy?
Every time the harvest decreases, people get upset, and the solution seems to be to decrease the harvest even more. It makes my head spin.
Toonces, when the harvest decreases the mentality is that the deer population is declining. If you want the deer population to rebound then you lower the number of deer tags allotted. Less deer shot equals more fawns and increasing population. Am I missing something?
Jax. 2015 was the biggest acorn crop on record. Deer just hung out and got fat and produced young that could get shot in 2017. If you scroll up to that acorn chart I posted, you can see the extreme inverse relationship between acorns and hunter success, particularly in 2015.
Bleydon here is the perfect graph for you.
Toonces is exactly right. If DEEP had reduced tag allotment last year and Zone 1 harvest decreased that would have been good news. But because there was no reduction in tags and harvest was low that’s bad news? That does not make sense, but what it does illustrate is that you can’t manage deer based on harvest alone. It does not really matter how many deer are killed, it matters how many of them are not killed, if that makes any sense.
Smoothdraw,
People shooting less deer should not cause you to want people to shoot less deer. Its already happening. Its circular logic.
Many people seem to want hunters to kill less deer in parts of CT. Now some of these same people are upset that less deer are in fact being killed. Sorry I just don't get it. I would think any decrease in the amount of deer that hunters are harvesting would be celebrated by many here.
At least on a statewide basis it seems about impossible to argue there is a collapsing deer population that needs radical change in tags. Just eyeballing it looks like the number of hunters is down over 20% in the past decade but 2017 had a very respectable harvest. While that could have been influenced by Sunday hunting and crossbows that wouldn't explain the big jump up since 2015 in the face of a collapsing population.
Ummmm....archery harvests have outnumbered gun harvests the last few years. Gun permits are way down and archery permits are way up from 10 years ago. C'mon guys, we all want to see lots of deer and kill one or two nice ones a season. The lower reported harvests are fantastic if we want that. That tells me that there are going to be more deer out there for us to see and kill. But that last not what most of us are encountering.
Also, keep in mind that our ability to be more proficient with our equipment has made us better killers....so lots of deer get reported....but lots more are not with the way things are. So I think we have been and are continuing to kill more deer than what is availble to grow the herd. Predators are another huge issue with taking the supplemental deer. It is what what it is. So when I see kill reports that show low numbers....wooohooo! I'm happy. But when most of the guys on this sight have expressed that deer sightings and kill opportunities have decreased over the last 8-10 years, it makes you really think hard as to what is happening. Another curious thing is that Doc won't give any credit to hunters saying that deer are far and fewer between us when we state that multiple times.....but he then says hunters are right online with the Acorn study.
Just take a browse through the tab on the forum for the state deer thing. Although we are but a small percentage of the total hunters in the state, the posts there show that most think our state stinks for management and opportunities.
BT - correct.
You would expect people to be celebrating declining harvests based on most of what you read here.
The factors you cite (predators and habitat) may be more impactful on overall deer population than hunters, but unfortunately that is largely outside of our control.
Zone 1 is the winner this year if it is in fact the only zone where hunters are killing less deer. Particularly for bow hunters, because that is likely one of the heavier firearms zones.
So there’s no link between deer population and the number of deer harvested? If the annual number of deer harvested dropped to 9,000 there would be no concern?
Sure SD! Look at 2015. The sky was falling after that season. But look at 2016 and 2017 thus far. Increased harvests and this year was the 4th highest harvest in 11 years. Was 2015 harvest the result of lower deer abundance as opposed to 2014 or 2016? I don't think so.
And BT, hunting has absolutely reduced deer abundances the past 10 years, but can't get densities low enough for ticks and disease abatement that the public seek and hunters use as justification for increased hunting opportunity.
In 2015 when most people reported a bad year a lot of people said this was proof the end was nigh from the collapsing deer herd, while others said it was principally due to the bumper acorn crop. It’s kind of hard to believe that Connecticut’s hunters all got way better in the next two years chasing the still collapsing herd. These numbers pretty convincingly support a healthy deer population in CT.
Toonces, there are too few deer in zone 1, even Doc agrees that the deep guys are concerned. So saying a low harvest is good news is like saying my income is increasing because im paying less bills. It makes no sense.
Bob,
If paying less bills isn't the solution then why is your solution reducing the number of bills we have to pay?
Reducing the number of bills I have to pay does work!! Cancel my COX TV and Internet and I keep $200 in my pocket each month. My income stays the same, but I get to keep more of it and invest it for growth. Just like reducing the number of deer killed leaves more deer in the woods, and they can breed to grow the herd, just like investing money for growth. You don't keep more of your money unless you limit how much leaves your pocket, and you don't grow the herd unless you limit the number (kind) deer that leave the woods on a drag rope.
Bob, Your missing the point....You you like to argue just argue especially with DR williams..
Here is a breakdown
last year I had 6 bow tags....I used one. I had 4 shotgun tags....I used one.... One ML tag...zero killed
If you only gave me 2 bow tags and 1 shotgun tag the same number of deer I killed would of still been the same....2
I don't know one person that used all 6 bow tags and all the shotgun tags...
Jax - with all due respect I'm not missing the point. I want ONE tag in the NW corner for bucks only with antlers at least 13" wide, or wider than the ears. Tell me how many deer you would have taken with one buck tag with those restrictions and then we can decide if I'm missing the point. I know what you're saying, that if there were a million tags and could only find two shooters,........I get than. My problem is with the DEEP issuing so many tags with so few deer in the area. That allows you to take 4 deer if you can find them.
The DEEP agrees that this part of the state has a problem with the deer herd, this is not a point that is open for discussion, but they haven't done a thing about it yet. Even Doc agrees that the DEEP is making "plans" to change the regs in the NW corner, I just think it's a bit late.
Just so you understand where I'm coming from - the last few hunter surveys I completed, I told the DEEP to CLOSE the deer season in zone 1 for a couple years to let the herd come back. So one buck only tags is my way of compromising.
jax - BTW, I play around with Doc and he does the same with me. I think we know where each other stands and I respect his opinions, I just don't agree with them when it comes to bow hunting.
Bob,
What you want is for the regulations in Zone 1 to enforce on others the way you currently hunt Zone 1, big bucks only.
As Jax stated, what matters is how many deer are actually killed, and in Zone 1, less deer are being killed, which is good.
Bob........Arguing with a lawyer is like wrestling a pig in the mud; sooner or later you realize they like it !
BBB said:
Reducing the number of bills I have to pay does work!! Cancel my COX TV and Internet and I keep $200 in my pocket each month. My income stays the same, but I get to keep more of it and invest it for growth. Just like reducing the number of deer killed leaves more deer in the woods, and they can breed to grow the herd, just like investing money for growth. You don't keep more of your money unless you limit how much leaves your pocket, and you don't grow the herd unless you limit the number (kind) deer that leave the woods on a drag rope.
I agree! Zone 1 had less deer leave the woods on a drag rope, that is a sign of progress, and we didn't need to reduce tags to do it!
airrow,
You are making jokes about arguing with folks? You?
Toonces - "Reduce the number bills" = "Reduce the number of deer tags to 1 buck". Outcome - "more money left in my wallet" = "more deer left in the woods" Growth - "invest money & retirement is great" = "deer breed & herd increase" And I only shoot mature bucks, so a buck with a 13" spread is not what I consider mature.
As for discussing opinions (ok, maybe it's arguing), yes I do like to exchange ideas. I think it's healthy to get someone else's viewpoint and I try to remain respectful and not resort to name calling, like saying someone is a 6-pack hunter.
BBB..first I want to congratulate you on your retirement. It's the best thing since pockets.
Now, I will say this respectfully..
"I want ONE tag in the NW corner for bucks only with antlers at least 13" wide, or wider than the ears."
"And I only shoot mature bucks"
These 2 statements from you are selfish and self-centered. "I WANT"...How about what the majority of hunters want? To go hunting, have a chance to kill a deer, any deer, and enjoy some venison. Correct me if I'm wrong, didn't you say that you don't like venison? If that is true, then you are hunting just for the antlers.
That is your business on how you hunt, however, when you come on here and state that "I WANT bucks only, with a 13 inch antler restriction"....what makes you the authority on hunting in the NW corner?
Based on what? Hunting just a few times each year? That you don't see a buck behind every tree? That you say that you saw 20 every time you went out...45 years ago?
1. 45 years ago. Shotguns and ML weren't allowed on state land..less hunters in the woods killing deer.
2. 45 years ago, there were very few bears, coyotes and bobcats in the state than today..fewer predators.
If you want to kill only mature bucks, 13 inches minimum, then go right ahead. Don't advocate and push your style of hunting on the rest of us.
Now, relax and enjoy your retirement. It's the best thing since pockets.
Yup. Bob talks deer management how he alone wants it, does not think about statewide management or hunters collectively. Which is why we go round and round and round and round and round.
air - thanks for the well wishes on my retirement,.....last day at the desk today:)
I want! Yes, I want one tag and you want something else. I'm not right and neither are you. Jax seemed to be confused about exactly what I was saying so I tried to put it plainly,.....I want! And did you miss the part about the DEEP agreeing with what "I WANT"? They been studying the deer in the NW corner for several year because of the decline in the herd that continues to occur, so I think what "I WANT" is representative of what the DEEP wants,.....reduced harvest in zone 1. May not just 1 buck with 13", but less harvest. We want the same thing. So unless you hunt on state land in zone, what I want doesn't matter (probably doesn't matter anyone, so not sure why you're so upset with me:)
I few times hunting each year???? Where did that come from? I went just a few times THIS year, but that hardly is representative of over 48 years of hunting the NW corner. There were years in the recent past where I hunted every weekend and several week days. Ask my wife, she can confirm. And I never said I don't like venison. In fact, I said I refuse to kill anything I don't eat. Never have and never will. I am the only one in my immediate family that will eat venison, but that has nothing to do with why I hunt.
And I never said I only shoot bucks with big antlers. The last buck I got in 2014 was old, but the antlers were not impressive, maybe a 130 if that. Maybe my handle of bigbuckbob is confusing, but only if you view a big buck as one that has big antlers, I don't!
If I was any more relaxed I'd be sleeping.
Doc - you should talk!! You don't even bow hunt and you're on this site preaching to us??? Really!! We go round and round because I want to. I like replying to your posts and waiting for your responses.
So can someone please tell me who on this site is representing ALL of the hunters in the state of CT when it comes deer herd counts? Harvest limits? Sunday hunting? Half hour after sunset reg? Cross bows? Etc? Because I heard what everyone else wants, but not what everyone wants.
Well no AR laws anywhere talk about spread...it is points to a side.....my GF's father hunts NY Southern zone and its 3 points to a side minimum and no doe tags...there you go Bob.....you can hunt there...its only and hour and half ride to the catskills...you will love it....you see doe after doe.....spike after spike and you cant shoot...your kind of hunting
however anything buck related has nothing to do with Deer Populations...it is about does....so no doe tags
any my Buck on state land would of met your min......
"Point restrictions were the most commonly used technique (15 of 22 states), followed by combination restrictions using antler spread and main beam length or antler spread and antler points (four states), and antler spread restrictions (three states)."
Wrong Link Sorry.
This should be the correct Link
Bob, you have stated that it should be bucks only on state land with antler restrictions. Very few people will agree with that. How many hunters are there, that fill each and every tag that is issued? That's archery, shotgun and ML..state and private land.
Predators are killing many times the amount that hunters kill. Until there is a season on bears and bobcats, that will continue to happen.
As far as what bucks that you hunt..."I only hunt mature bucks"...great, good for you. Your tag, your deer.
This one man crusade that you have about the NW corner, is all about what you "want".
My goodness, now that you are retired, there will be all kinds of things for you to think of, in which we can argue...hold on, I need more popcorn.. :)
Ive been reading posts for 2 years on this site & hardly reply but this cracks me up. First Bob & Williams are the most annoying guys here. Both in a pissing contest & both trying to 1 up eachother with there " knowledge" Its pretty pathetic! Bob your always crying about the NW corner but have news for you. Its the whole state that deer #s are declining! Then guys complains about reducing tags & getting rid of replacement tag zones & baiting both of which im in favor of but Deep is spread thin & dont think there really concerned about the deer herd or change would have come several years ago when the deer #s were dropping . Everyone complains about predators killing the deer & also agree to that but the simple answer to a tough subject is hunters themselves should self govern themselves meaning just cause you have access to all these tags through all the seasons doesnt mean you need to fill them all. Pretty simple & commonsense but that wont happen either cause alot of guys out there kill as many as they can because they think it makes them a good hunter & could careless how many or few deer are left. Ive been hunting for 30yrs & can take deer with no problem whenever i want to but i enjoy watching more then killing & with the #s declining steadily every year i decided not to take 1 this year just to do my small part. And for those who think its ok to fill all there tags i simply say for a family there is no reason to ever take more then a couple deer a year its more then enough meat
TC im thinking BBB and the doc are one in the same lol. I agree with limiting yourself. I have two kids that now hunt with me. I have to be cognizant of how many, we as a family take. Not sure what I would do with 30 deer either.
We're annoying but you've been reading here for 2 years? Thank you?
Great movie dude!!!.just saw it for the 47,000 time last night..
https://youtu.be/M8i_esl4vI4
Oh I hated creepy Joaquin Phoenix in that. But his sister......
Oh ya she deffinetly maximus rising there...lol
You may now continue squabaling and bickering deer numbers..
https://youtu.be/DVAxzf1HdH4
Bbb....if you are so concerned with deer numbers in nw corner....I assume you will be coyote hunting ..
Post the pics ... Thx
so looking at the new hunting guide. they put in a couple lines about hunting is prohibited in Westport. It was always a conversation but never saw it in there before.
Glen excels at using FOIA. Here are the town totals for the rest of us hunters. Redding still in top 15 towns in terms of harvest......
Dr how can that be....white buffalo decimated the herd
I will say landowner numbers are inaccurate. If a person owns the acreage for landowner and hunts other properties they can report under either tag.
At the risk of stirring the pot...with all the talk of too many tags, how do we see the ratio of unique conservation ID’s to deer harvested?
We have requested the actual confirmation number information from DEEP several times through FOIA and have been refused each time. So why does the CT DEEP not want to provide this data ?
Take Redding, CT for instance; their are several special hunts that take place in and around the town, archery only programs on town land and the Devils Den shoot which is controlled by the DEEP. The Devils Den shoot use to publish the harvest numbers and now hey don`t, so were do the Devils Den (Redding & Weston, CT) numbers go and to which town ? Now consider the hunters that claim to shoot deer in Redding when the deer are actually shot outside of Redding in other towns. The Redding archery program......how many deer and how are they recorded. The CT DEEP uses a multiplier of 2X when counting deer; what is the multiplier they use for harvested deer and deer not checked or recorded on the computer program. What the CT DEEP has is a program that they control, ask yourself why did they cancel the daily updates on deer harvest totals ? So the next time “ Doc “ tells you Redding is one of highest harvest rates in CT, tell him “show me the confirmation numbers”.
12:15pm. The Devil’s Den hunt uses licensed hunters on private land following the DEEP deer hunting laws. Is that what you mean by “controlled by DEEP?” I would presume that hunters that take a deer on Devil’s Den would check them into the town from which they were harvested. Just like on Regional Water Authority’s Lake Gaillard that spans North Branford and Guilford. Or hunters who shoot a deer in the Town’s East River Preserve check them into Guilford. So the Guilford total of 131 as reported here includes the 6 deer taken on the East River Preserve. It’s not 137. Just as a hunter taking a deer on Redding Town lands would check the deer as having been taken in Redding. So the 147 deer reported as being taken in Redding includes all those deer taken on town lands. So are you suggesting that there is a conspiracy and guys are shooting deer elsewhere and are reporting them checked into Redding? Why even shoot the deer at all? Why not just burn all your tags and check in phantom deer? Do you think guys are doing that?
Why is the number you reported to start this thread (presumably from your FOIA request) 559 greater than what they posted on their website? You reported 12,377 and on the link it’s 11,818. If they refused to comply with your FOIA request, then where did you get those numbers? You seriously think that DEEP is reporting harvested deer that were not actually harvested? Why would you think that and why would they do that? The check system is not perfect and is not meant to get an exact number and DEEP assumes the same error year to year and uses the data to compare trends. Just as with the aerial survey data, not intended to get an exact number but rather to compare increases or decreases in abundances between years.
All I did was look at the data in the link I provided, looked at Redding’s reported 147, and I then counted 13 other towns with higher totals, which means, Redding has the 14th highest reported harvest thus far in the 2017 season. And Newtown is the highest with 217. There is no disputing that.
Doc - Your figure 11,818 does not include all harvested deer for 2017 ending 12/31. The number 12,377 (provided by DEEP) does. Doc you have been multiplying deer numbers in Redding, CT for the last 5 years by 4X (ITM Study) 2013-2017, review your data.
3:11pm. Not my numbers, DEEP's from the link. It would seem you're inflating numbers.
Doc - "It would seem you're inflating numbers." The only one inflating numbers here is you, adding 200 deer to the January season that have not been accounted for yet !
Maybe you should add the crop damage and special hunts, our number from DEEP is all harvested deer for the 2017 season ending 12/31.
The rest of us don't have access to the cropkill data as DEEP has not released it. Which is why I was asking why the totals differed.
How can you suggest ending the January season based on data that doesn't include the January season?
