# Connecticut and Alabama



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

Here are some quotes at the website http://www.deerhuntingguide.net.

Connecticut: (http://www.deerhuntingguide.net/connecticut-deer-hunting.html) "Connecticut deer hunting continues to shine as an extremely long archery season with very liberal bag limits, and a peak rut gun season make the nutmeg state a great place to bag a trophy buck... Permission may be easier to get in Fairfield and lower New Haven counties due to the huge numbers of deer found there. The state has implemented special regulations in these areas in order to curtail the burgeoning deer population. Bow hunters in these zones are offered repacement tags. For every doe that you harvest, you are issued a replacement tag. If you harvest three does, you are issued a bonus buck tag. It is a great way of reducing the deer herd, as some archers harvest upwards of 20 deer."

Alabama: (http://www.deerhuntingguide.net/connecticut-deer-hunting.html) "With a deer herd topping an estimated 1.75 million animals and one of the most liberal seasons in the country, is it any wonder that hunters love this state. The Alabama deer hunting season covers 108 days annually and hunters may harvest both a buck and a doe everyday in most areas." Imagine that, a daily bag limit for deer!

It sounds a far cry from the dwindling deer hunting opportunities in Utah. Maybe the catch phrase should be "Go East young man."


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Pretty cool.

Deer harvest totals 2012:
Illinois - 180,000
New York - 243,000
Wyoming - 39,000

.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

LA finally has a season limit again. 6. One buck & one doe per day. Archery runs from Sep 20 to Feb 15, firearm early Oct to early Jan. Up until recently there was no bag limit


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Ok if there were 16,500 cougar in Alabama. I assure you that they could not harvest that many animals. No matter how good the habitat or weather or adaptability or perceived hardiness of whitetail over mule deer. I really would like to have a population estimate of coyote in Utah. So I could tell you how many coyotes Alabama's deer herd would need to equal what Utah's deer herd deals with. 

In Utah we have approximately 150 deer for every cougar. Alabama and just about every state west of the Mississippi has 0 cougar for 1 million deer. Coyotes I'm snot so sure about. But I do know that west of the Mississippi humans do a vast majority of the killing. With bows guns and cars. 

You can deny it if it makes you feel better but the simple fact is that predators out west have replaced humans as the primary source to control game numbers. PETA couldn't be happier. CWMU,s are getting more money than ever before as a result. Folks will pay a guide to kill a deer here in Utah. A guide!? SFW and the UWC get to recruit us to their cause because their gonna save our deer. Land managers and cattlemen are happy because they can manage for more graze not browse. And lastly the naturalist gets to try and mimic a pre settlement wildlife tapestry.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> Ok if there were 16,500 cougar in Alabama. I assure you that they could not harvest that many animals. No matter how good the habitat or weather or adaptability or perceived hardiness of whitetail over mule deer. I really would like to have a population estimate of coyote in Utah. So I could tell you how many coyotes Alabama's deer herd would need to equal what Utah's deer herd deals with.
> 
> In Utah we have approximately 150 deer for every cougar. Alabama and just about every state west of the Mississippi has 0 cougar for 1 million deer. Coyotes I'm snot so sure about. But I do know that west of the Mississippi humans do a vast majority of the killing. With bows guns and cars.
> 
> You can deny it if it makes you feel better but the simple fact is that predators out west have replaced humans as the primary source to control game numbers. PETA couldn't be happier. CWMU,s are getting more money than ever before as a result. Folks will pay a guide to kill a deer here in Utah. A guide!? SFW and the UWC get to recruit us to their cause because their gonna save our deer. Land managers and cattlemen are happy because they can manage for more graze not browse. And lastly the naturalist gets to try and mimic a pre settlement wildlife tapestry.


According to "experts" it's not predators it's selenium despite evidence to the contrary


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

16,500 cougars... I wonder where that number came from.


----------



## longbow (Mar 31, 2009)

wyogoob said:


> Pretty cool.
> 
> Deer harvest totals 2012:
> Illinois - 180,000
> ...


243,000 deer were harvested in New York? That's a crazy amount for such a small state. Whoda thunk it?


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

massmanute said:


> 16,500 cougars... I wonder where that number came from.


That number is WAAAAAAAY too low. There are at least 25,000 in Provo alone. And that isn't even counting alumni.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

If Alabama has 1.75 million deer. And there was one cougar for every 150 of them like there is in Utah. Then Alabama would need about 16500 cougar. 

Yep not many cougar in NY either. I know Pennsylvania has a ton of bow hunters and almost no public land to hunt. It's not just for the rich man there. No SFW there either. (Nothing to save) Because they need hunters to help control deer numbers. If they reintroduced cougar "habitat" and weather would start having a greater effect. Because a cougar will kill 50 deer a yr. and that make habitat suck.

I'm telling you the estimated 2000 cougar in Utah kill upwards of 100k deer in Utah per year and it has an effect. States east of the Mississippi don't have large predator populations and have more than enough hunting as a result. With a few exceptions. Like Minnesota and Michigan and Maine were wolf populations and cougar have has a negative effect on hunting. I mean habitat.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

longbow said:


> 243,000 deer were harvested in New York? That's a crazy amount for such a small state. Whoda thunk it?


New York is perfect deer country, agriculture mingled in with heavy wooded areas.
see: http://www.dec.ny.gov/press/90435.html

Here's a list of all the states' deer harvest numbers for 2011:
see: http://www.deerharvestresults.com/states.htm

New Jersey deer harvest 2011 - 50,000

Wyoming deer harvest 2011 - 43,000

.


----------



## HunterDavid (Sep 10, 2007)

LostLouisianian said:


> LA finally has a season limit again. 6. One buck & one doe per day. Archery runs from Sep 20 to Feb 15, firearm early Oct to early Jan. Up until recently there was no bag limit


 I grew up in Bossier Parish and the limit of 6 has remained the same, statewide, since I was a kid....hunting there in the early 80's. They didn't issue tags then, but the limit then was six. Since that time they have actually started to issue actual tags to use. I lived there in the 70s, 80s, and 90s and it was the same the entire time, as far as I can remember. Am I missing something?


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

wyogoob said:


> New York is perfect deer country, agriculture mingled in with heavy wooded areas.
> see: http://www.dec.ny.gov/press/90435.html
> 
> Here's a list of all the states' deer harvest numbers for 2011:
> ...


That's an interesting link. More from the same link:

Kansas deer harvest 2011: 185,940

Minnesota 2011: 192,331

Mississippi 2011: 270,000 (almost as much as the total deer population of Utah)

Wisconsin 2011: 257,511 (more than ten times as many deer harvested as Utah)

Delaware, with both a land area and population of only a fraction of Utah's: 13,511

Utah 2011: approximately 23,000


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

massmanute said:


> That's an interesting link. More from the same link:
> 
> Kansas deer harvest 2011: 185,940
> 
> ...


The Wisconsin total of 257,511 is gun harvest only. They had 90,000 archery and 1340 more off the Indian Reservations for a grand total of 348,000!!!! Something to note; Wisconsin has a large wolf population and a growing number of deer fatalities due to Chronic Wasting Disease.

.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

HunterDavid said:


> I grew up in Bossier Parish and the limit of 6 has remained the same, statewide, since I was a kid....hunting there in the early 80's. They didn't issue tags then, but the limit then was six. Since that time they have actually started to issue actual tags to use. I lived there in the 70s, 80s, and 90s and it was the same the entire time, as far as I can remember. Am I missing something?


According to my brother who has lived in Avoyelles all his life, up until recently in the area he hunted there was no season limit. Just a daily limit. I believe it was only a few years where there was no season limit. Growing up in Avoyelles I seem to remember when I was a kid that the season limit was either 5 or 6 per year but I've been gone for 20+ years now.


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

wyogoob said:


> The Wisconsin total of 257,511 is gun harvest only. They had 90,000 archery and 1340 more off the Indian Reservations for a grand total of 348,000!!!!
> .


Wow, that's more deer than the number of deer living in the state of Utah!


----------



## Mtnbeer (Jul 15, 2012)

Four words are the difference for ungulates between the west and the east:
Precipitation and food availability


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Mtnbeer said:


> Four words are the difference for ungulates between the west and the east:
> Precipitation and food availability


Four words: I'm thinking acorns, herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizer.

I think everything whitetails eat has farm chemicals on it - with the exception of acorns.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Maybe some of these harvest numbers are BS. After all, many of the states with high harvest numbers are Liberal states and everyone knows Libs don't hunt or own firearms.

.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

One mis-perception I think worth noting here, is that since Utah is a bigger state, it has more habitat. I'd suggest that New York has MORE ACRES of prime whitetail habitat, than Utah has of prime mule deer habitat. Same with PA. And Illinois. And Wisconsin. And And And. ..... In all reality, when you take out the West Desert, Salt Flats, super dry canyon/desert country, the Great Salt Lake, etc.... Utah really doesn't have that much good habitat. Sure, we have all kinds of public lands. But more than half of it doesn't hold critters. 

Second, the southern states mentioned not only don't have predator issues, but they also don't have winter-kill. 

And more than anything, the states listed don't have elk. And we all know that the elkies eat the deer. So there.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I think mule deer live anywhere except asphalt and salt flat. You can and will find mule deer almost anywhere in Utah. Heck they even scurry around slick rock. From 13,000 ft to sea level the hardy and adaptable mule deer has thrived. Let's see a specialist like the whitetail do that. Yep severe desert to wetlands you can find a Muley. In the city or way out in the book cliffs you can find a Muley. That tells me they have a very wide range of food they will utilize. So I beg to differ that it's about adaptability or hardiness. As far as a species is concerned mule deer are still thriving. 

What I'm concerned with is the complexion of our hunting prospects. And that is where management of any nature comes into play. Fact is we could all walk away from wildlife dissolve the DWR and they would do just fine without us. Or probably better in most cases. I pay for tags. For that I expect my dollars to go to bettering my tag prospects in the future. Not going toward my detriment. Regardless to the natural predators so called right to thrive. So I refuse to stay silent or be in denial or talk about other lesser factors until predation is largely identified as an issue and delt with accordingly. 

Now read my signature.


----------



## Mtnbeer (Jul 15, 2012)

The east and south has plenty of predators as well. Feral dogs, coyotes, bobcats, black bear, and the occasional mountain lion. In several cases, I'd bet that most states back east have more ungulate predators per square mile than any western state. Not to mention, diseases like EHD are much more prevalent there. 

Also, it isn't so much that mule deer are more adaptable (but I reserve the right to argue that point. Hardy, then I agree), it's the calories per acre difference between land in the east and west and much of that is due to precipitation. You can look at Oregon or Washington as a microcosm of the eastern and western US. The Coastal range of Oregon and Washington, where precipitation is much higher, have deer densities up to 80 deer per square mile. Contrast that with eastern Oregon and Washington, where deer densities are 10-15 deer per square mile.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Good point. Washington Oregon and California have really low deer harvest and deer populations compared to the east in spite of having whitetail and so called better weather and precipitation. California has 5xs the deer habitat than Utah but I bet they don't harvest as many as we do. I do know however that cougar are at total capacity there. So bad I heard of a study sighting a male that was breeding with his own offspring. Sicko! God i hate them cougars. Lol

Anyways unlike back east, cougar get to do as much killing as they can in Cali and that doesn't leave much for the hunter. So they come to Southern Utah to hunt. I wonder if the liberal left anti hunting folk in California understand the effect of capacity predators on allowable human harvest. I know it's a very abstract and difficult concept for some here to grasp.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Yep California only harvests about 10,000 buck and 0 cougar per yr. and it has nothing to do with rain or habitat.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> Yep California only harvests about 10,000 buck and 0 cougar per yr. and it has nothing to do with rain or habitat.


But there are "experts" on here claiming that predators are not a major cause of low deer number that it's selenium deficiency....how can that be? They also claim that it has to do with herbicides and pesticides sprayed on roadsides. They seem to not understand that deer in the east and midwest gorge themselves on crops that are treated with herbicides and pesticides and seem to thrive. It makes me shake my head sometimes. Maybe these "experts" are full of big fancy words and missing gray matter between the ears.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

lostlouisianian said:


> they also claim that it has to do with herbicides and pesticides sprayed on roadsides. They seem to not understand that deer in the east and midwest gorge themselves on crops that are treated with herbicides and pesticides and seem to thrive. It makes me shake my head sometimes. Maybe these "experts" are full of big fancy words and missing gray matter between the ears.


zombie deer


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

LostLouisianian said:


> But there are "experts" on here claiming that predators are not a major cause of low deer number that it's selenium deficiency....how can that be? They also claim that it has to do with herbicides and pesticides sprayed on roadsides. They seem to not understand that deer in the east and midwest gorge themselves on crops that are treated with herbicides and pesticides and seem to thrive. It makes me shake my head sometimes. Maybe these "experts" are full of big fancy words and missing gray matter between the ears.


I dunno about the other "experts" you are referring to, but aren't you an 'expert' about deer? My memory aint as bad as Goobs, but it's gettin' there!:mrgreen: Thought you were some kinda biologist or sumpin?


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

wyogoob said:


> New York is perfect deer country, agriculture mingled in with heavy wooded areas.
> see: http://www.dec.ny.gov/press/90435.html
> 
> Here's a list of all the states' deer harvest numbers for 2011:
> ...





Iron Bear said:


> Yep California only harvests about *10,000* buck and 0 cougar per yr. and it has nothing to do with rain or habitat.


Hmmm, not sure I put much credence into that report goob. Cali hunters harvest around 30k/35k per year, plus or minus depending on *WEATHER *

https://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/hunting/deer/deerhunt.html


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

CA takes the same number of lions they did prior to the ban, you just don't get to hunt them. F&G and wildlife services take them.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

LostLouisianian said:


> But there are "experts" on here claiming that predators are not a major cause of low deer number that it's selenium deficiency....how can that be? They also claim that it has to do with herbicides and pesticides sprayed on roadsides. They seem to not understand that deer in the east and midwest gorge themselves on crops that are treated with herbicides and pesticides and seem to thrive. It makes me shake my head sometimes. Maybe these "experts" are full of big fancy words and missing gray matter between the ears.


Just to drive home Stillhunterman's comment: Do you mean like people with college degrees, that possess no real world experience relating to them? I mean, I know you have one, or is it two? Because you posted that you did on the internet.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Critter said:


> zombie deer


Sort of, the deer in the video just spent a few days eating pesticide laden plants. Her fawn did not survive her wondering around in circles for days. And then there are the real freaks, like this fawn http://rutalocura.com/images/IMG_6521.JPG that was born with thyroid disruption in a pesticide spray area. Its lower incisors are splayed out and don't make contact with the upper dental pad, which is small and under developed, like the rest of its upper face.

Did I mention all the small penises, small and malformed testicles and learning disorders this stuff causes?


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

stillhunterman said:


> Hmmm, not sure I put much credence into that report goob. Cali hunters harvest around 30k/35k per year, plus or minus depending on *WEATHER *
> 
> https://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/hunting/deer/deerhunt.html


Thanks for the link Perry. The report you are disputing is for 2011 deer harvest figures. Your link takes you to a State of California chart that says 10,823 deer killed were killed in 2011.

.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

So to reiterate. 

A state back east like Alabama has 1,750,000 deer and next to zero cougar. A ratio of one cougar for every 150 deer like Utah and other western states. Would require about 11,600 cougar to achieve the same ratio as the west. Those 11,600 cougar would need to kill about 580,000 deer per yr to survive. So could Alabama's deer herd handle 900,000 kills per yr along with road kill? That's 580,000 going to predators and 320,000 going to hunters. I wonder how many road kills Alabama gets. I'm guessing with 1.75 million deer it's quite a bit.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> Yep California only harvests about 10,000 buck and 0 cougar per yr. and it has nothing to do with rain or habitat.


California has bad stats because there are a lot of crappy hunters there. I slayed two bucks a year easily and could have killed triple that number most years. Also, don't think that the cougar harvest is zero. I bet they still kill as many as we do here, they just do it illegally because their state has been ambushed by wackos.

I have hooked up a few folks from here with buck spots in Cali and they have done very well. One guy killed a great 5 point. The Golden state is a hunting sleeper state. Don't tell anyone though.--------SS


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> So to reiterate.
> 
> A state back east like Alabama has 1,750,000 deer and next to zero cougar. A ratio of one cougar for every 150 deer like Utah and other western states. Would require about 11,600 cougar to achieve the same ratio as the west. Those 11,600 cougar would need to kill about 580,000 deer per yr to survive. So could Alabama's deer herd handle 900,000 kills per yr along with road kill? That's 580,000 going to predators and 320,000 going to hunters. I wonder how many road kills Alabama gets. I'm guessing with 1.75 million deer it's quite a bit.


What kind of deer?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

That's all you got? 

There not mule deer. 

Go back to bed.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

wyogoob said:


> Thanks for the link Perry. The report you are disputing is for 2011 deer harvest figures. Your link takes you to a State of California chart that says 10,823 deer killed were killed in 2011.
> 
> .


Thanks for pointing out the error of my ways...eyes Tim! New glasses coming soon.8) I was looking at the estimated harvest, which I believe is much closer than the actual harvest. If memory serves, hunters who killed were required to have their tag validated, and back in the day I knew many, many who never bothered. Oh well...;-)


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Springville Shooter said:


> *California has bad stats because there are a lot of crappy hunters there*. I slayed two bucks a year easily and could have killed triple that number most years. Also, don't think that the cougar harvest is zero. I bet they still kill as many as we do here, they just do it illegally because their state has been ambushed by wackos.
> 
> I have hooked up a few folks from here with buck spots in Cali and they have done very well. One guy killed a great 5 point. The Golden state is a hunting sleeper state. Don't tell anyone though.--------SS


I know I shouldn't admit it, but that's funny SS! And yeah, you are probably more right than wrong. I must have pulled at least 8 or 9 X zone tags over the years; only killed two mulies. However, had my goal been to just kill a deer, any deer, I would have tagged out every year. Same in the B zones with the Blackies. Good guys, but lousy hunters seems about right, for the most part.:mrgreen:


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/Popular/mtnlions.html


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

stillhunterman said:


> I know I shouldn't admit it, but that's funny SS! And yeah, you are probably more right than wrong. I must have pulled at least 8 or 9 X zone tags over the years; only killed two mulies. However, had my goal been to just kill a deer, any deer, I would have tagged out every year. Same in the B zones with the Blackies. Good guys, but lousy hunters seems about right, for the most part.:mrgreen:


My California standards were 20"+ three point or better in the X Zones and anything better than a yearling in the B and C zones. Later in life I started getting more picky with my second tag and killed some decent bucks in the Trinity's and Yolla Bolla's.

California gets away with a crafty sales scheme. They sell WAY more tags than they have bucks to kill because of the topography, habitat in the west Sierra and Coastal ranges, and vast tracts of private land and wilderness. The terrain is such that the same number of deer will be killed whether you have 5, 50, or 500 hunters. Many folks have resigned themselves to riding around in a jeep drinking beer instead of hunting. This is why success rates are so low and why California makes a mint selling tags for deer that they don't intend to kill.--------SS


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/Popular/mtnlions.html


I am very familiar with the study. In the late '70s and early '80s, when this study was conducted, declining deer, elk, and sheep numbers were not understood like they are today. South of Kings they had elk with malformed skulls that they used to cull. Back then, prior to our current understanding of epigenetics, these were thought to be genetic problems from bottle necking. Elk and deer in many areas of California, including Kings, beginning in that time frame, suffered from mineral deficiencies, broken antlers, and reduced productivity.

In response to these conditions, studies like this: http://deerlab.org/Publ/pdfs/23.pdf were conducted. There is more on that here: http://deerlab.org/othercervids.html In these selenium supplementation studies, productivity was increased by 260% and predation was reduced, without predator removal. Much like in Wyoming with bighorns. All of these areas are composed of granitic soil, which complicates and magnifies these conditions.

The study you cited never demonstrated that removal of lions could increase deer survival. We all know lions kill deer, but population dynamics are not that simple. Pointing at a study that says that lions kill deer, is like pointing to the sky and saying it is blue. To effectively make a predator control argument, you need to demonstrate that predator removal increases prey populations. And if you are talking about lions and mule deer in Utah, it should be relevant on those basis as well.

Speaking with biologists in Kings and INYO back in around 2008, the problem still exists. Same with bighorns.

Another freebie. There is a study that showed additive predation over 20 years ago from black bears in the Sierras. I won't hand it to you, but it exists.

Is that a better attempt for you?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

stillhunterman said:


> Thanks for pointing out the error of my ways...eyes Tim! New glasses coming soon.8) I was looking at the estimated harvest, which I believe is much closer than the actual harvest. If memory serves, hunters who killed were required to have their tag validated, and back in the day I knew many, many who never bothered. Oh well...;-)


To believe the reported kill number of ~10,000 to be actual take, you would have to accept that the success rate was only ~6%. A number of 30,000+(estimated kill) fits accepted success rates much closer.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Do you have a study to back that up?

Don't go applying common scene thinking to wildlife management.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

A study on success ratios? They exist yes, that is a part of how tags used to get allocated under scientifically sound wildlife management. Its not the kind of study I keep in my quiver. 

The rates are accepted not because they are "common sense" but because they have been studied and quantified. They are known parameters. Hunters with particular weapons tend to have success rates within a certain range, for certain species, in particular places. The "estimated" harvest is based on those parameters, not common sense. 

Those CA numbers don't include archery only harvest either.


----------

