Block Island Deer Herd Reduction
Connecticut
So it appears that Block Island has successfully reduced their deer herd and tick problem WITH HUNTERS only, not with White Buffalo! How is this possible? It must be fake news. Tony D from WB and Doc have testified under oath that only trained, skilled, sharpshooters, over bait, at night, doing illegal things, shooting from trucks, from airplanes, while riding at full gallup on a horse, speeding ATV's, etc were capable of reducing the herd on the island. Hunters are just too stupid and don't know how to kill deer. (I may have exaggerated some points in my previous statement)
No, the Deer Task Force on the island instituted a program where hunters are paid for every deer tail they turn in during the hunting season. At what cost you ask? I know, it must be in the multiple millions,............Get this:
"According to the budget documents presented to the voters at the May 2017 Financial Town Meeting, the actual expenses for deer management were $11,307 in 2013-2014, $71,240 in 2014-2015, and $39,213 in 2015-2016, for a three-year average expense of $40,586." WHAT???? $40k per year average???? That's not possible!!! It costs millions of dollars to kill deer, just ask Doc and Tony D from WB.
Now what did Staten Island pay to just snip the bucks and RETURN the tick infested, car banging buggers back into the wild? $3.3 mil and growing!!! My, my, my!! It appears the islanders on the BLOCK are a bit smarter than the islanders on the Staten.
And the reported lyme cases decreased from 74 in 2015 to 46 in 2016. Wow!! What will we hear next? That a bow hunting site should only allow people who actual bow hunt to post threads and replies. Ridiculous! Crazy!
Love it when Doc eats crow. Take a big mouthful Doc, and don't forget to swallow!!
Hot of the press!!! Latest update from the Island. You're going to love this!!
"Town manager Nancy Dodge said this year the town offered resident hunters a bounty: $150 per deer tail.
“And it proved to be a good incentive,” said Dodge. “We had more deer taken—we had at least as many as had been contemplated under the White Buffalo contract.”
The professional company had guaranteed culling 200 deer and would have charged about $128,000 to complete the project.
Wait! I'm laughing too hard to type!! WB was asking for $128k for just 200 deer and stupid hunters took 400 deer (gotta do the math, so I have to take off my shoes to count). That's DOUBLE the number of deer for less than half as much money!!
Man o man are those people smart!!! No doctorates. No biologists! No sharpshooters. Just us stupid hunters.
In case you're wondering, I didn't cut and paste the part of the article where it stated that "Locals were able to harvest 400 deer". :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
My sentiments exactly BBB. I’ve said this for many years that hunters would do the same job as WB but usually at a slower pace. Low and behold offer them an incentive $$$ and look what happened!!!
Where have you been Bob? Your “Hot off the press!!!!” epiphany is old news dude. You are quoting articles from 2015: (http://www.providencejournal.com/article/20150602/NEWS/150609795 and http://ripr.org/post/deer-reduction-hunt-successful-block-island#stream/0). The Bowsite readership would have realized that right away had you provided a link. The $150 bounty has been in place several years. And it doesn’t cost “millions of dollars to kill deer,” it costs millions to capture and sterilize them. They are not killing them on Staten Island…. Staten Island has 8,000 people/square mile. Block has 105. These are entirely different animals and therefore different deer management strategies. Good job with using The Google though!
One must ask if hunters removed 40 deer/square mile in the 2014 season, how many deer were there to start with? Well over 100/square mile as RI DEM did a flyover on Feb 19 2015 and counted 550 deer, or 55/square mile. Yes, hunters killed a bunch of deer in 2014, but they left a lot on there too. Nearly double the density that was estimated remaining in Redding. You are making the classic mistake of using harvest data to measure success. Harvest data records how many deer there aren’t, not how many there are. Now, remind me why we are talking about a deer season that occurred 4 years ago in a different state as if it were something new? Because you just came across and were made aware of it?
And this goes into another issue that has been raised here. The $150 bounty is basically market hunting. You guys are cool with that to incentivize increased harvest? Would Block hunters have performed the same without that incentive? Careful Bob. Tread lightly with this one.....
Doc, you failed to mention WB quoted $128k for 200 deer and hunters did it for $30k for the same number of deer and in one year. I could care less when it was news and that only makes me wonder why you failed to share it previously if you knew about it. And paying hunters to do the job is not an issue if I'm the taxpayer footing the bill.
And I measure success on results. Half the number of cases of Lyme disease and done at a fraction of the cost. That was the intended results, so 100 percent success anyway you cut it.
You're wrong about hunters not being able to do what WB does Doc, just admit it and you'll feel better. The truth will set you free.
And who cares about Redding??? Once again you fail to recognize that most of the land in CT is not open to hunters, whether it's Redding or Norwalk, so having 4 dpsm or 400 is dependent on access to the land Doc. Get with the program. Stop talking about the hole and get with the donut.
And let me know how it works out when you tell the taxpayers in the SW corner of the state that the government is going to apply yet another tax so they can pay WB millions to sterile deer with drugs or snip them and return them to the woods. Oh, by the way,.... those deer will still be eating their expensive shrubs and running into the sides of the BMW and Mercedes and spreading lyme disease to their kids. Can't wait to here their reaction to that proposal. Hunting won't sound so bad after hearing all of the options. Pay the hunters $150 for the tails and see how many guys will jump at the chance.
Stupid hunters $30k=200 deer. But they delivered 400 deer in one year. Tony D from WB $125k=200 deer,....offer refused. Tony D from WB was supposed to kill lots of deer in Redding because they were standing shoulder to shoulder per the survey, but his experts couldn't do the job, in 3 long years. Experts? At what? Taking taxpayer's money!
That's the bottomline, no matter when it happened.
Glad you're cool with market hunting. Financial incentive will give guys a reason to go out and kill many dozens of deer, putting WB out of business. That's the goal right?
Hunters reduced deer on Block from 100 to 55 deer/square mile with a bounty in place. That's a reduction and a good start yes. But those remaining densities is a starting point in lots of towns who want deer reduced. It's better than it was yes. Problem solved? No.
Tell me where in CT that WB has done what hunters could not do? Just one location.
They've worked 2 lethal programs in CT: Greenwich and Redding. In Redding in 2013, on 2 square miles, 51 deer were taken or 25.5 deer/square mile average reduction over 2 months. In 2013, over 4.5 months of hunting, all hunters in Redding took 141 deer over 32 square miles, or an average reduction of 4.4 deer/square mile. That's more than 5 times the density reduction.
No Doc - WB failed to deliver the number of deer they said they would remove in Redding and you admitted that on a previous post where you blamed it on interference from a guy in a truck watching the sharpshooters. So WB was paid $142k for 51 deer, and failed to deliver the cull number based upon the FLIR. BTW - lethal program does not equate to success.
That's not what you asked Bob now is it? Here is what you asked: "Tell me where in CT that WB has done what hunters could not do? Just one location." Are you changing the narrative now? You asked the question, I answered it with one you didn't like. Bob, show me one place where hunters in CT have reduced deer density by 25 deer/square mile. Just one location.
Doc - I know this is going to be difficult for you, but let's look at the FACTS for Redding and WB. I know you're aware of what they were supposed to do, right? They were contracted to remove 101 deer over 3 years, and FAILED by only removing 51. That's a 50% FAIL! FAIL Doc, not success. You've stated all along that WB was the only way to reduce the deer herd to acceptable numbers, and WB failed to meet the contracted number with Redding for acceptable levels and that's over bait, with high powered rifles, at night, breaking laws, etc. Talking about having an advantage over us poor hunters!!! WOW!!
And that's the same claim you have against hunters, that we can't (that's excluding you because you're not a bow hunter) can't reduce the herd to acceptable (you're definition of acceptable, not ours) numbers. And why would you compare 3 years of WB culling to one year of hunting harvest? Is that some scientific approach you take to justify your good friend Tony D from WB as being an expert in the area of killing deer? Nice try!
And the one location where hunters reduced the herd to LESS THAN 25 dpsm is Great Mountain Forest. Check with Jody and he'll confirm that with you. Be careful though, he may still be mad at you for saying they had too many deer on the mountain. He may ask if you've removed your head from your posterior before he answers any of your questions :) :)
Love it.
Steve - wait, are you saying hunters don't hunt at night??? What about high powered rifles? What about shooting from a truck in the landowner's driveway without permission? What about baiting? What about getting paid $174k to FAIL? Are you saying hunters don't get to do all that? No wonder Doc thinks WB is so good. I bet he doesn't realize that bow hunters aren't allowed to do all those things. Poor guy,......he's confused. Can we please have a moment of silence for Doc.
Amazing on Block - but, not a fan of the incentive. I'd think if they just sent a advertisement to a few regional hunting/fishing magazines or newsletters they could have achieved the same result for less $ on Block though.
I think often, the challenge for hunters, is that at heart we are environmentalists. We want there to be deer for next year, for our kids in 10 years, for their kids in 25 years, for their kinds in 50 etc. After that it's access and what not.
I'd suspect RI does not operate mainland hunting the same way that they ran the program on block.
To kill a lot of deer, hunters need lots of access and encouragement.
If those are not happening (and they dont in "free range hunting" given normal game laws)... A lot of deer aren't being killed...
Bob, Initially Doc proposed killing 250 deer in Redding. So the performance percentage was even worse than you stated.
Will - the residents of Block Island had overwhelming support for the deer herd reduction and the island is 100% private land with exception of the Naval station and state beaches. After hearing the ridiculous price from WB, they put their heads together and decided to offer hunters the same opportunity as WB and the hunters delivered BETTER results (400 deer vs the 200 promised by WB) for 25% of the cost per deer.
I agree, I don't want that kind of program in the NW corner of CT where the deer herd is already low, but in isolated cases where private land is the only thing in play, this program would work. Now we just need to keep the liberals and biologists out of the conversation.
Ace - they said 250 and delivered 51!!! And they're the experts? 25 years of culling money from cities and towns,.... I mean deer, as long as no one is watching them from a truck, or no acorns are falling, or the weather is nice, or the sun rises in the east,......The guys with Doctorate degrees. The best FLIR on the planet. Scientific approach vs stupid hunters who only know what they see with their own eyes. And their on a bowsite but don't bow hunt. Go figure.
But, but, but, How can that be Bob? Don't we need the Government to solve every problem we have?
Are you trying to tell me that people spending their own money on themselves is somehow more efficient than other people spending other people's money on other people? Who'd a thunk it?
Ace, hmmmmm. You should have been a famous economist!
Isn't it illegal to run a Deer Pool for money in CT? If that's the case then they will never allow a bounty program.
The exalted Dr Williams can never admit he's wrong. He's smarter than Us Deplorables. Old news? 2 seasons ago? If it were last year, you'd create another Faux reason to knock it down. I've been following this raging debate for long time now with an open mind. Hang it up DOC. You've lost. Mad Dog
Bob - no worries, I'm pretty liberal, and think biologists are awesome... But I still want no part of WB style programs. Point being - it's not a lib thing or bio thing. I admit in some situations maybe it's the only way. But I really hope not.
3:08. Bob. You need to do your homework instead of insulting and lecturing me about the project I was directly involved with. They were not contracted to take 101 deer over 3 years. That is completely fictitious and made up by you and you cannot back that statement up. To correct your “facts,” they took 51 deer yes, in 2013 alone: then 25 in 2014 and an additional 11 in 2015 for a total of 87 on 2 square miles, over 3 years. Additionally, I think Ace has told us on many occasions on this site that a .223 is not a “high powered rifle.” And I was not talking about advantages and disadvantages of sharpshooting vs hunting, I was merely answering your question “Tell me where in CT that WB has done what hunters could not do? Just one location.” If firearms hunters cannot get close to approaching acceptable deer reduction densities or rival the efficiency of sharpshooters, there is absolutely no way archers could. I was not comparing “3 years of WB culling to one year of hunting harvest.” I was comparing 2 months of WB work in 2013 to 4.5 months of hunting in 2013-2014, again, to provide the data to answer the question you asked. What part of my previous statement regarding this was unclear? Seems pretty straightforward to me.
“In Redding in 2013, on 2 square miles, 51 deer were taken or 25.5 deer/square mile average reduction over 2 months. In 2013, over 4.5 months of hunting, all hunters in Redding took 141 deer over 32 square miles, or an average reduction of 4.4 deer/square mile.”
And to correct you again, my question to you was not where hunters reduced densities TO 25 deer/square mile, it was where they reduced it BY 25 deer/square mile. This too seems pretty clear to me.
“Bob, show me one place where hunters in CT have reduced deer density by 25 deer/square mile. Just one location.”
Jeez man, you are making this way too easy and coming across as a bit hysterical and quite ill-informed.
Hi Steve. You are correct they were permitted to take deer at night, but I think we can all agree that it was not considered hunting. Again, I was just answering Bob’s question: “Tell me where in CT that WB has done what hunters could not do? Just one location.” And he didn’t like my answer so he went kind of bonkers and made a lot of “facts” up. The fact is, sharpshooting is more effective than hunting because the handicaps imposed on hunters are lifted to get the job done in certain experimental and overabundant situations. There is no comparison on a small scale, but if done correctly, hunters can be far more effective over a large-scale because there are orders of magnitude more of them than the 4 or 5 WB guys.
Ahhhhh.so it all hindges on a word!!!..kinda like blumi mis- spoke about nam or puppet murphy mis-read his mortgage payments and esty mis-understood the severity of the beatings..
"That all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."
Yeah Doc, let's talk about the words and ignore the FACT that hunters on Block Island did what WB couldn't contract to do. They must have been afraid of quoting 400 deer, even with high powered rifles, scopes, bait, night hunting, shooting from trucks, ATVs, airplanes, etc. Expert means you can deliver results non-experts can't deliver. You know Doc, us stupid hunters. And the BI hunters were NOT supposed to reduce the herd to 25 dpsm or BY 25 dpsm, they were supposed to kill as many deer as they could, and they delivered more deer than Tony D from WB could do. I think you should call Tony and tell him to go out to the Block ask for some help from those stupid hunters. Maybe one of them will show him how to do it,......for $150.
And I don't care how many deer WB took in Redding because the only thing that's important to me is they FAILED to deliver to the contract Doc. And using your numbers Doc, they still FAILED with 87 deer!!!! Stop talking about the trees and let's talk about the forest. They failed with their experts and fancy rifles non-high powered rifles. I know you feel sorry for Tony and want to make him feel better for failing by trying to twist and turn the numbers to make things look good for him, but Redding was a loser effort, just admit it.
And it's now 6:19. Oh wait, I don't need to check in with anyone, I get to do what I want. Ahhhh, I love playing with you. Hunters = yes! WB = FAIL!!
7:55. Actually now that I re-read my paper Bob, it took WB 3 weeks to achieve an average of 25.5 deer/square mile reduction in 2013, not 2 months. This compared to 4.4 deer/square mile reduction by all Town hunters over 4.5 months....
And your point is,.........?
It took a little time to understand your last post Doc. So WB FAILED in a shorter period of time than previously reported. Thanks for clarifying.
12:15. My point is to counter your insanity. To quote you: “And why would you compare 3 years of WB culling to one year of hunting harvest? Is that some scientific approach you take to justify your good friend Tony D from WB as being an expert in the area of killing deer? Nice try!”
It didn’t take 3 years for WB to do “what hunters could not do”, it took 3 weeks for them to drop density by 25 deer/square mile and hunters 4.5 months to drop it by 4.4 deer/square mile. You are trying to suggest hunters can be more effective than sharpshooting. They cannot, that is the point of sharpshooting, to get results and reduce deer. It is not hunting, is not sporting, and is not meant to and never purported to be, fair chase. And sharpshooters are paid. If hunters can do it better than WB, why haven’t they done so yet?
You just hate hearing that WB FAILED to do what these self proclaimed "experts" said they would do. Doc, WB stated there were tons of deer in the area and yet they still FAILED. That must be why they said they would only kill 200 deer on Block Island, because they learned that they're not experts afterall. Tough to be humbled like that.
So here is my question, White Buffalo was given a designated piece of land (in Redding) where deer densities where at their highest (two mile radius). They were allowed to use guns (during bow season?), while hunting over bait, at night, and out of cars? I have a feeling if you gave any hunter(s) these advantages, the number of deer killed "by hunters" would have been much higher. Just my observation.
Hoytman, that's crazy talk. How can you compare a hunter who's been chasing deer for 30-40 years to WB "experts" who are trained by a PhD who learned everything from a book?
1511. Haha Bob. That’s funny. You have been chasing deer for many years I will give you that, but harvesting deer, that you are lousy at. 1 deer every 16 years ain’t going to cut it as an employee in a deer management firm. And you sure do have to read a lot of books to be able to capture and surgically sterilize 1,100 bucks. Any hunter could do that no problem after 30 years of hunting experience. Why do you say such dumb things like that? Is that all you got now?
Hoytman. WB was hired to reduce deer in the vicinity of separate 2 square mile areas by special permit from DEEP. These were not determined by where deer densities were the highest, just where we chose the neighborhoods for inclusion in the study. It was not meant to be sporting or fair chase. But given all the back and forth here, can you honestly tell me that there are guys on this site willing to kill deer for the purposes of experimental and dramatic deer reduction? This makes it seem like all hunters want to do is kill deer. If so, why all the talk about DEEP and tag reduction and complaints about declining harvest in Zone 11? Hunters think they can and want to be sharpshooters, but really, they don’t. It’s not fun and it’s not pretty. That is why there is a differentiation between hunting and sharpshooting. Hunting puts food on the table and is a recreational endeavor with minor herd reduction. Sharpshooting is done by professionals with high liability insurance who are paid to kill deer, donate the venison, resulting in substantial herd reduction. That said, I would love to do a study to compare recreational hunters with state imposed regulations, to hunters with relaxed state regulations equal to sharpshooters, and a sharpshooter and see what the deer reduction results were. I can tell you the results already. Recreational hunters will reduce by 4 deer/square mile, hunters with relaxed regs by around 6-8/square mile, and sharpshooters by 40 deer/square mile or some similar distribution. It’s a lot more than just killing deer, but hunters don’t realize this because their priority is killing a single deer, not a whole population. It’s a different mindset that hunters cannot easily grasp because they have never been exposed to it.
Hell we took 109 deer in one season with volunteers and archery equipment, no weekend or afternoon hunting on 5000 acres. I've been involved with quite a few archery deer management programs and they absolutely work.
One of the properties I know of hired sharp shooters and managed only 11 deer at night over bait. The following year a group of volunteer bowhunters came in and shot 40+ animals hunting only a couple of mornings a week.
Skip, don't confuse the issue with facts, that only causes doc to divert the conversation from the topic to your spelling or some tangential topic like liability insurance. He was on this site lecturing us how Redding was over run with deer but WB FAILED to harvest the deer they committed to. I don't call that being an expert. The only reason Doc defends WB is because Tony is his friend, not because they are good at what they do. WB tried to get on to the Block Island kill with a contract for 200 deer for $128k. Hunters killed 400 for 25 percent of what WB wanted. So who's the expert and who's the fool?
Doc, I only shoot what I want to shoot, not what I see. That's called hunting. I do it with a bow, something you know nothing about. I'm proud to have the ability and respect for nature to harvest an animal that presents the greatest challenge, a smart old buck. Any dumbass can take a rifle and shoot whatever walks by, YOU know that!
There is a time and place for killing and a time and place for hunting but both can be done with a bow. In certain areas where the population was too high, I killed 20-30 deer a season with my bow for quite a few seasons. I had friends who killed more than that. These areas now have a population that is low enough thst such aggressive harvests aren't needed. Now it's maintaining the numbers through selective harvests. I don't enjoy the "killing" these days but my family eats 6 or 7 bdeer a year. So that's what I shoot, spread out over different properties. This season I took 6 does and a 10.5 year old buck, while passing 28 other bucks with the bow. These properties are showing tremendous improvement in forest regeneration and maintained lower deer densities. All through volunteer bowhunters alone.
Skip. Yup, coordinated efforts can successfully reduce overabundant deer. 109 on 5000 acres is almost 14/square mile reduction which is pretty respectable. But what was the ending density? I'm guessing around 50/square mile if archers were able to take so many. But to suggest archery could rival sharp shooting because of experience like Bob is suggesting is incredibly naive. He may not like it, but that doesn't mean it's not so. My mantra here all along has been if hunters claim to be able to manage deer like Bob is suggesting they do, why is WB's business thriving? Why nonlethal contracts for millions of dollars?
And for the record, I'm not taking sides in an argument between anyone. I'm just stating that putting the right people into the right program can absolutely drop deer densities to a sustainable level with archery equipment.
Research has shown that firearms hunting in suburban settings with bait and unlimited tags can't get densities below 40 deer/square mile. Archery, a less efficient means of take, cannot do better than that, particularly in NY with your ridiculous setbacks.
And yet we have, with our set backs, without bait. Well, the set backs are only if you don't have permission and through education, permission became easy to get. As long as we were able to obtain access to most of the properties in the suburban settings we would really dent the deer population. Most homeowners eventually got on board. The key was to have proficient hunters that are very capable of shooting 30+ yards and to shoot the "lead doe" first, who often wasn't the first in line. This way you had time to shoot a second, third and sometimes fourth animal before the deer were out of range. In the one situation a couple friends and I killed 33 deer in one small neighborhood in 2 seasons. As for the 5000 acre property, we could only hunt weekday mornings. 109 were killed the first year alone. The program has been a huge success. The key has always been that you can't just have a "weekend warrior" go in a take a deer a season. You need guys who can and will stack bodies until you get to the density you want.
skip - Scotty states he's "guessing" there are 50 dpsm and you're expected to take that as FACT. Typically beam me up the facts for Scotty. He also ignored the FACTS that you presented about reducing the deer herd with a bow and that Block Island hunters did the same. He'll try to divert the discussion by stating his "GUESS" at the remaining herd still being too high, so hunters failed. But what he won't mention is that WB FAILED to harvest the deer from Redding where they said there were too many, and they only signed up for 200 kills on Block Island and hunters delivered 400. There's a typical pattern with Doc and WB. Over estimate the results and under deliver. This is FACTUAL data from their previous programs, they've never delivered the results that they were paid to deliver. Staten Island is going to be huge failure and the increase in the number of bucks now showing up is evidence of that fact. You better get your nose ready to be rubbed into it Doc when the results are published. I'm sure Tony D from WB will proudly publish them. Can't wait.
Skip. Those are good take tactics to keep deer naive for sure. But again, on the 5000 acre piece, 109 is impressive, but you are judging success based on the number of deer taken, when really, it should be determined by how many were left over. A 14 deer/square mile reduction is fantastic if you started at 20 deer/square mile, but merely a flash in the pan if you started at 100 and are left with 86/square mile. I congratulate the effort and am impressed by the results with the bow however, particularly in NY.
Dr- we don't have hard numbers as the chopper pilots can't seem to fly transects. BUT- the browse surveys, pellet counts and 10 tallest plots all indicate a fraction of deer we started with and we are seeing tremendous forest regeneration. I truly believe it can be done in a lot of instances but it must be a focused effort... not just opening the areas up for casual Bowhunting... at least until the numbers are under control. But it's important that these areas continue to get hunted, further lowering or at least maintaining the numbers.
Skip, love your common sense approach based upon boots on the ground. Once again Doc needs to find a way to down play your success by stating there are still too many deer in your area even though he has no idea where you hunt. What I love is that you have control of the herd size and have the ability to manage it based upon what you want from the area and not some bookworm expert that doesn't bow hunt.
Skip. I'll shoot Rawinski an email about this. As a botanist, he is super pro hunting and pro deer management. He and I share a lot of the same sentiments on this topic. Good thing all the deer you are killing are in NY or else these guys would take your head off!
Doc "Hoytman. WB was hired to reduce deer in the vicinity of separate 2 square mile areas by special permit from DEEP. These were not determined by where deer densities were the highest, just where we chose the neighborhoods for inclusion in the study."
Doc..... Keeps referring to the Redding , CT..... The CAES study as being just 2 square miles in size; the actual size of the combined two study areas was 3.2 square miles in size or 60% larger than he is stating ! Not to mention that WB (White Buffalo) shot / worked 5/8th of a mile outside of the White Birch test site.......for the majority of deer taken in that test area.
Dr- we've taken plenty of heat over taking too many deer. Guys miss seeing 20+ deer a sit, but our forests and deer are healthier. It's nice to have deer rutting and chasing like they are supposed to. They respond to calls and cruise for does, giving hunters will to work for it a much better chance at killing a mature buck. The last few years I've passed actual archery shots at anywhere from 28-37 different bucks a season.
I cant say for sure what our deer densities are but frankly that's irrelevant, we really only care about deer impact. I really like the Rawinski method because it's easy for different people to monitor a plot and have consistent results, where as different people conducting browse surveys or pellet counts led to inconsistencies
Now Doc is good friends with Rawinski, just like he's good friends with Jody Bronson at GMF and he's good friends with Tony D from WB and he's a good friends with,.......ah come on Doc, who are you kidding. You don't have any friends. Why else would you be on this site trying to discuss topics with bow hunters when you don't bow hunt. Lonely people do desperate things, that's why.
8:28. Skip. You are wise not to attempt to come up with a deer density estimate because it will be met with skepticism and criticism as you have witnessed here. What really matters is if the problem is better than it was and if the landowner is happy. However, if you are passing on 28-37 shots at bucks every season with the bow, there are still a crapload of deer out there. So while it may be better than it was, you are still dealing with an overabundant deer situation. Rawinski and I actually grew up in the same old mill town in MA, though he is several years my senior. He is really pushing the 10-tallest method because as you say, it is easy for the layperson to institute and quantify browse impacts.
Doc / Skip - describe the 10 tallest method? Sounds interesting.
Will i think its easy..look for really really tall things then count to 10..im just a lay person not at a holiday inn...lol
Tall stories is my guess. Doc is an "expert" at those but he has more than 10.
Dr- I'm sitting at the very least 60 sits a season, on the best days to hunt , I scout hard and hunt over thousands of acres. Most guys hunting the same areas don't get to pass a fraction of those deer. The population isn't very high. In fact I had very few Doe sightings and only passed one Doe. She was being chased by a pile of bucks I could have shot. I also consider a "pass" a lot different than most bow hunters. Anything broadside, open and relaxed inside of 60 yards is a pass. The buck I decided to kill this year was 18 yards and trotting, he wouldn't stop no matter how loud I bleated. I was confident and made a great shot. Most would have not had a shot opportunity.
This is the "10 tallest method"
http://flnps.org/sites/default/files/newsletters/Ten-tallest%20Method%20Instructions%202018.pdf
Thanks Skip. If you sat 60 times and passed on shots on 30 bucks inside 60 yards, that's a pass on a buck every other sit = a crap load of deer no matter how you cut it. I'm guessing densities around 75 deer/square mile. Tom sent me that same info on the method and had a guess as to where you are hunting but wasn't sure.
The deer densities were estimated at 60 before we implemented any programs. We are far below that. Hunters this year were not seeing any deer on a high percentage of sits. I passed about 12 of those bucks in 2 days during the rut. Very few encounters outside of the second week of November. I volunteer with 3 management programs in Westchester. No affiliation with the link I provided.
skip - you'll find that Doc's estimates are accurate and your numbers will never be accurate, even though you have pointed out the many hours spent in the woods first hand. He's a piece of work!!
Like I said before, I'm not here to argue with folks. I'm out of this. Bottom line you'll never convince me Bowhunting can't be effective at reducing deer population to a sustainable level. I've seen it done. It just takes the right program in place. I said my peace and I'm out
When you sit for 10 days and see one deer, then you can tell me that archery is an effective deer reduction tool and I will agree with you.
Doc, go to state land in the NW corner. I could have suggested you go somewhere else but I'm too nice.
I don't disagree densities in the NW corner state land are lower than elsewhere, but to say that's a result of archery is disingenuous.
Damn, I got suckered back in. Dr- plenty of places in the area you might go 10 days without seeing a deer. One program averages around 100 hunters. This year the majority didn't harvest a deer and overall saw very few. Seeing a deer every 10 days is a poor way to judge deer population and deer densities, let along appropriate deer densities. Each area has a different carrying capacity. I hunt VT which has incredibly low deer densities and if I go 2 sits without seeing a deer, I'm doing something wrong. I killed a doe 30 minutes into my first bowhunt there. Never sit the same spot twice, do as much work as it takes to access the spot properly, even if it's walking 2 miles out of the way, get your scouting done before green up, be in the best spot on every sit. Work hard and smart. If you still have questions on effectiveness of archery, contact the Curator of Wildlife for Westchester county. The date proves it's working and at ZERO cost to anyone but the hunters who PAY $40 to cover their ID's and paper work
Doc, what reduced the deer herd in the northwest corner is mismanagement by the dep and now the deep. Hunting whether it was with guns or bows contributed as well as predation. But the bottom line was mismanagement. And the DEEP failed to provide correct deer herd estimates once again and the result was low herd numbers.
