
Dozens of CT hunting and fishing licenses were suspended in 2024. One extreme case stands out.
During the hunting and fishing season last year, approximately 62 Connecticut hunting and fishing licenses were suspended or revoked, according to documents from the state's Department of Energy and Environmental Protection.
The vast majority of license suspensions issued are for anglers, since Connecticut issues significantly more fishing licenses than hunting licenses each year, according to James Fowler, spokesperson with DEEP. Most suspensions are for six months or just long enough to be excluded from the season. More serious violations last an entire year. In some cases, licenses can be revoked indefinitely depending on severity, primarily for serious hunting-related offenses or violations of certain laws.
'The state can issue a lifetime suspension for hunting or fishing licenses in the most serious cases — typically for repeat violations. For example, we issued a lifetime suspension last year to an individual repeatedly caught poaching striped bass,' Fowler said.
Among the suspensions issued by DEEP's Environmental Conservation Police, approximately seven hunting licenses were suspended, with the rest being fishing licenses. Hunters make up a small number of outdoor enthusiasts in the state, with their numbers continuing to dwindle, according to data.
Sales numbers continue to trend downward in almost all license categories including firearm, archery and combined hunting/fishing licenses. Last year, the state sold 9,224 resident firearm hunting licenses compared to 9,469 in 2023. Overall in 2024, the state's junior firearms hunting license also declined from previous years. In 2024, there were 468 junior firearms licenses purchased, down from 495 in 2023.
CT hunting and fishing licenses sales decline. It impacts the economy and outdoor programs
Non-resident license sales were among the few categories to see increases last year. In 2024, the state recorded 199 license sales for non-resident firearms hunting and inland fishing permits. That number is up from 2023, when there were 189 non-resident combined license sales. Sales of non-resident combined firearms hunting and all-waters permits, including marine fishing, also saw a slight increase.
Though fishing licenses have fared better, they also have also seen a downward trend since the COVID-19 pandemic. Last year, the state recorded 188,896 fishing license sales, including inland fishing, marine fishing, non-resident and youth ages 16-17 licenses, for a total of $3.2 million in revenue. That number represents an increase over 2023 when 182,575 fishing licenses were sold raking in $3.1 million. Numbers have substantially declined since 2020, when the state sold 209,507 fishing licenses that generated approximately $4.1 million in revenue.
According to DEEP documents, among the most common reason for fishing license suspensions included 12 issued for fishing in a reservoir. Other violations included illegal takes of short striped bass and being over creel limit or keeping over the amount legally allowed. Other suspensions cited anglers not having a trout/salmon stamp and fishing without a license.
Hunting violations are considered potentially more serious. While the state does not maintain a public-facing historical database of suspensions over time, they do prepare a monthly suspension list, according to officials. Connecticut is a member of the Interstate Wildlife Violator Compact, which also suspends privileges for residents who are suspended or have unpaid fines in other member states. Most hunting violations incur a one-year suspension, according to data.
'We honor suspensions from other member states as well,' Fowler told the Courant.
Among hunting license violations were illegal take of a turkey and another illegal take of an unidentified migratory bird last summer. Other violations included negligent hunting and hunting without a license. Negligent hunting is a criminal offense categorized into four degrees based on the severity of the negligence and resulting harm. A person can be charged with negligent hunting if they engage in any conduct that exhibits a high degree of carelessness, including acts that could cause serious injury or death to themselves or others.
In a more extreme case, an 81-year-old hunter was deemed liable for negligence after accidentally shooting someone while out pheasant hunting in South Windsor in 2023. While the incident was deemed negligent and not intentional, the man had his hunting license privileges suspended for a year.
All license suspensions in Connecticut are appealable, according to DEEP. When a suspension is issued, the license holder receives a notice with instructions on how to appeal the decision. Once someone is notified that their license is suspended they are required by law to immediately stop all fishing, hunting and trapping activity and surrender all their licenses within 10 business days to EnCon police. In addition, Fowler said the state requires completion of a remedial hunter education course for certain safety violations and for reinstatement of hunting privileges.
Stephen Underwood can be reached at sunderwood@courant.com.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
‘Suspicious substance' found mailed to home in Burlington
BURLINGTON, Conn. (WTNH) — A suspicious substance was found in an envelope mailed to a home in Burlington on Friday, state police said. Officials responded to a home on Kings Grant Road on Burlington around 7:35 p.m. on Friday for an alleged suspicious substance found in an envelope. Tractor-trailer collision and fire closes I-95 north in East Lyme The investigation remains active after officials from DEEP and UConn Hazmat responded. It is unclear what the substance is or where it came from at this time. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Apple Valley woman latest to be charged in Feeding our Future fraud
An Apple Valley woman is the 72nd person federally charged for her role in the $250 million fraud scheme that exploited a federally funded child nutrition program during the COVID-19 pandemic, acting U.S. Attorney Joseph H. Thompson announced on Friday. Dorothy Jean Moore, 57, of Apple Valley, was charged in a federal indictment with three counts of wire fraud and two counts of money laundering, Thompson said in a news release. According to the release, Moore launched two purported federal child nutrition program sites in late 2020 under the sponsorship of Feeding Our Future. Moore completed and signed meal count forms, claiming to have served 1,500 meals to children each day at each of her sites, which she said she operated out of community churches. Moore claimed and received reimbursements for those meals through the Feeding Our Future program, the release said. In addition, she said she operated a catering company called Jean's Soul Food and claimed additional federal reimbursements for food from that company used at the other sites. The release cited her bank records, saying they show she used 'little of the reimbursement dollars she received to purchase food. Instead, Moore used those funds for other purposes, including to purchase cars and fund an enhanced lifestyle.' She is the 72nd Minnesotan charged with defrauding the U.S. Department of Agriculture's child nutrition programs during the pandemic, when regulations temporarily were loosened and a variety of businesses and nonprofits were allowed to help feed hungry kids while schools were closed. Federal prosecutors have called the scheme the nation's largest coronavirus pandemic fraud, amounting to more than $250 million. 'This fraud is outrageous, brazen, and seemingly never-ending,' said Thompson in the release. 'Stealing from a program designed to feed vulnerable children is not only criminal — it's unconscionable,' said Special Agent in Charge Alvin M. Winston Sr. of FBI Minneapolis. Moore made her initial appearance in U.S. District Court Friday. Brooklyn Center attorney suspended by Minnesota Supreme Court U.S. Customs Border Protection officer charged with possessing child porn Man once convicted in Minnesota of supporting al-Qaida is now charged in Canada for alleged threats Jury finds Milwaukee man guilty of killing and dismembering 19-year-old woman 'We feel relief': Derrick Thompson found guilty in Minneapolis crash that killed five young women
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Christine Van Geyn: Do police have the right to peer at you in your car with a drone?
Can police use a drone with a zoom lens to peer into the interior of vehicles stopped at red lights? Can police enter a home's private driveway and look in the windows of vehicles? Can the government track the cellphone location data of millions of Canadians to track their movements? And can a private foreign company scour the internet collecting photos of Canadians for use in facial recognition technology that is sold to police? These questions are not hypotheticals; they are real live issues in Canadian law. We are living in the mass surveillance era. But many Canadians do not have a thorough understanding of how far surveillance goes, or what the limits on it are, or whether our legal protections are adequate. The police in Kingston, Ont., are ticketing drivers at red lights for merely touching or holding their cellphones based on evidence collected by a drone. The Supreme Court recently heard a case about police entering a private driveway and not just looking in a truck window, but opening the door and collecting evidence — all without a warrant. The Alberta Court of Kings Bench just considered a case involving the facial recognition technology of Clearview AI. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Canadian government was tracking the cellphone location data of 33 million Canadians. After the Trudeau government invoked the Emergencies Act, the government ordered the freezing of bank accounts of a police-compiled 'blacklist' of demonstrators, which was distributed by the government to a variety of financial institutions and even lobby groups. What these cases are demonstrating is that we have entered the era of mass surveillance, and Canada's legal protections are inadequate. First, Canada's privacy legislation is outdated. Privacy Commissioner Philippe Dufresne has said we are at a 'pivotal time' for privacy rights in Canada. Former Ontario Privacy Commissioner Dr. Ann Cavoukian has also called for updates to Canadian privacy laws, 'so they apply to all data, including anonymized data.' Much has changed since the current federal privacy legislation was drafted in the early 2000s, but efforts to modernize this law died when Parliament was prorogued. Second, when it comes to state intrusions, the concept of privacy may be inadequate. Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Supreme Court has interpreted this right to mean the protection of a person's 'reasonable expectations of privacy' against state intrusions. The notion of 'reasonable expectations of privacy' has become a mantra in Section 8 jurisprudence. But some academics have said that in the era of mass surveillance, this guiding principle is an inadequate gatekeeper. In a lecture for the Canadian Constitution Foundation's new free course on privacy rights, Osgoode Hall Law professor François Tanguay-Renaud proposes a thought experiment that reveals the inadequacy of 'privacy' as an organizing principle. What if the police were recording people on the street, with drones following people and recording their movements as they went about their day, zooming in on their cellphones and recording their conversations? In such a scenario, where people are in plain view, privacy is an inadequate concept to limit what we all see intuitively as oppressive state conduct. At one time, this hypothetical might have been considered far-fetched. Today it is eerily similar to the Kingston police drone scenario. In Kingston, police are using a drone to take aerial images peering into cars and zooming in on cellphones. Those drivers do have reasonable expectations of privacy inside their cars, but what would limit this police conduct if they surveilled citizens on sidewalks or parks, where they were in plain view without those privacy expectations? A principled line must be drawn between things done in plain sight that police can view and constant surveillance using enhanced technology. It may not be possible to draw that line on the basis of the existence or not of 'reasonable expectations of privacy.' There are other values that could serve as guiding or informing principles for Section 8. There is nothing in the text of Section 8 that mandates the gatekeeper of the right be 'reasonable expectations of privacy' rather than another interest, like dignity, liberty, security, anonymity, public confidence in the administration of justice, and many more. Indeed, American jurisprudence has been moving away from the concept of 'reasonable expectations of privacy' as the sole guiding principle for their 4th Amendment. To meet the challenges of the surveillance era, it is well past time for Parliament and the provincial legislatures to update privacy laws. But as recent police conduct shows, it's time for our Section 8 jurisprudence to be revisited as well, to meet the emerging challenges of the surveillance state. National Post Christine Van Geyn is the litigation director for the Canadian Constitutional Foundation. Canadians who want to learn more about their privacy rights in Canada can sign up for the Canadian Constitution Foundation's free course at Opinion: In 2020 the world shut down, and Canadians lost their privacy rights Facial recognition tool used by RCMP deemed illegal mass surveillance of unwitting Canadians