500 - Internal server error.

There is a problem with the resource you are looking for, and it cannot be displayed.

Greenwich, Connecticut FLIR Deer Survey
Mathews Inc.
Greenwich, Connecticut FLIR Deer Survey
Whitetail Deer
Contributors to this thread:
airrow 17-Jul-16
bleydon 18-Jul-16
Medicinemann 18-Jul-16
longbeard 18-Jul-16
Charlie Rehor 18-Jul-16
bleydon 18-Jul-16
deerman406 18-Jul-16
airrow 18-Jul-16
Thornton 18-Jul-16
spike78 18-Jul-16
Medicinemann 19-Jul-16
Toonces 19-Jul-16
longbeard 19-Jul-16
airrow 19-Jul-16
longbeard 19-Jul-16
Dr. Williams 19-Jul-16
Will 19-Jul-16
Dr. Williams 19-Jul-16
Dr. Williams 19-Jul-16
Dr. Williams 19-Jul-16
airrow 19-Jul-16
Dr. Williams 19-Jul-16
airrow 19-Jul-16
bb 19-Jul-16
GF 19-Jul-16
Dr. Williams 20-Jul-16
spike78 20-Jul-16
airrow 21-Jul-16
Dr.Williams 21-Jul-16
APauls 21-Jul-16
bb 21-Jul-16
steve 21-Jul-16
bigbuckbob 21-Jul-16
grizzlyadam 22-Jul-16
Mike in CT 22-Jul-16
airrow 24-Jul-16
airrow 25-Jul-16
bigbuckbob 25-Jul-16
From: airrow
17-Jul-16

airrow's Link
Greenwich, CT. FLIR Deer Survey 2016 - In 2016 Vision Air Research was contracted to perform a Forward Looking Infrared survey to determine the deer population in Greenwich, CT. The survey was conducted between 1600- 0200 hours; February 27-28, 2016. The results of this survey showed a total of 313 deer located in 111 groups. Group size ranged from 1 – 10 deer with most deer groups in the 1 – 3 size range.

The FLIR survey for Greenwich averaged 7.27 deer per square mile and should be compared to the estimated 22.4 or 44.8 corrected deer per square mile claimed by the DEEP for 2015 in Zone 11. The 2016 FLIR survey covered 43 square miles in Greenwich, 90% of the town and therefore represents a true census of its whitetail deer population. In contrast, the DEEP transect surveys for 2015 are based on surveying only 0.3% of Greenwich.

By sampling only fractions of the town, the DEEP surveys can only reliably report the number of deer in those fractions. The CT DEEP attempts to extrapolate the results as town-wide numbers and as a result their numbers are grossly overstated. Wildlife seek out preferred habitat in a town and will never be equally distributed in any town. The repeat surveys merely demonstrate that anyone can repeat the same error multiple times and get the same wrong answer.

In just the last six years Fairfield County, CT; Zones 11 and 12 have lost 50% of the deer through over harvest do to unlimited doe tags, baiting and the January harvest.

From: bleydon
18-Jul-16
It is very hard to believe 7 psm in Greenwich. I am curious to hear feedback from Greenwich hunters as it was my understanding there is a denser deer population there than in Stamford. I am sure it isn't north of 60 like it used to me but 7 just can't be right.

From: Medicinemann
18-Jul-16
Pat LeFemine had a FLIR unit in deer camp one Fall for our Kansas hunt.It was a really cool device....and I would probably trust its results more than a DEEP survey....unless it was really warm on the day that the survey was completed. However, February in Connecticut probably wasn't very warm...LOL

From: longbeard
18-Jul-16
bleydon if you talk to any of the older hunters in the Greenwich area they will tell that the deer numbers have fallen off drastically in the last 10 years. This is not unlike many other areas in the state, and certainly not surprising given the reasons that airrow has listed. Also it is nothing that hasn't been discussed over and over again here on Bowsite. The problem is the state doesn't manage the heard according to what we (the hunter) want. They are somewhere along the line tied up with big money insurance companies. With that type of "management" plan being followed, they are and have been attaining their goal. Personally I don't see it changing anytime soon. If they did it would be complete surprise. I've been hunting in Greenwich since the 80's and I would say those FLIR Survey numbers are about what I have been experiencing.

18-Jul-16
I hunt whitetails in 8 to 10 states from Rhode Island to Kansas. All those states have experienced a decline in numbers. Reasons vary! The good old days were the nineties until 2005. It's a cycle.

That said if you were in the deer woods in the 60's and 70's you know we are still in fantastic deer days! C

From: bleydon
18-Jul-16
I am certainly not a biologist but from my understanding 7 is very low. If that is correct it simply can't be explained by hunting take. The increased predator numbers would be needed to explain that kind of collapse. This hunting season will be interesting to see if last year's drop off was due to the bumper mast crop or truly a sign of plummeting numbers.

From: deerman406
18-Jul-16
Charlie is correct. The 90's deer numbers in most places were through the roof. It has fallen off some, 7 deer PSM does seem low to me for most any place in the NE. We had a mild winter last year and I am seeing huge numbers again in my bow area in NY. Shawn

From: airrow
18-Jul-16
Greenwich CT. was chosen to FLIR survey because of it`s consistent deer harvest over the last 6 years. Lets look at Greenwich just by the numbers, the survey states 313 deer for 43 square miles ( all areas north of Rt 95 ); add the areas south of Rt 95 approximately 4.8 square miles times 7.27 dpsm = 34.89 deer + 313 deer = 348 deer total in Greenwich, CT 2016. If we give Greenwich a fawn recruitment rate of 29% (midway between 23-35), we then have approximately 449 deer. Now if we subtract the average yearly hunter harvest rate for the last six years in Greenwich = 97 deer or 2.02 deer harvested per square mile, we have 352 deer in Greenwich, Ct. by the numbers.

Greenwich has become the model for "neutral growth"; and is what the CT DEEP is trying to accomplish throughout Connecticut.

From: Thornton
18-Jul-16
Charlie- If you think the 90's were good, you should have been here in the 80's

From: spike78
18-Jul-16
Airrow, you are assuming a 100 percent detection rate. Also why do they choose to fly that early? I see deer everyday in the backyard and they aren't around until at least 6pm minimum. I also believe the 1-3 sightings as all the ones I see here are split up. I get two together tops and sometimes one doe with a fawn or three.

From: Medicinemann
19-Jul-16
How did they arrive at the fawn recruitment rate of 29%? Not doubting it....just curious....

From: Toonces
19-Jul-16
The thing that has always bothered me about these deer per square mile surveys is that they are never apples to comparison.

How many square miles of open space is there in Greenwich? There can't be as much as in other less populated areas.

Maybe 7 deer per square mile isn't that low when you factor in the amount of actual open space per square mile in Greenwich.

By my way of thinking any deer per square mile measurement is meaningless. The correct measure should be deer per square mile of available habitat.

Even that is subject to question as not all habitat is created equal.

From: longbeard
19-Jul-16
I still believe that those are pretty accurate numbers according to my trail cams and first hand sightings on multiple spots in Greenwich. Obviously there are pockets of more and areas of less. But with the combination of the expanded hunting opportunities, baiting, unlimited tags, a change in land owner attitudes, which led to an increase in hunter numbers and the White Buffalo event; all taking place at approximately the same time, the numbers fell dramatically and have not come back since. Neutral growth is a great way to describe it!!

From: airrow
19-Jul-16
Some believe the Greenwich numbers are low and should be 20-30 dpsm; so let's look at Greenwich with 20 dpsm and what the numbers would look like. Greenwich with 20 dpsm = 956 deer, a fawn recruitment of 29% (midway between 23-35), would bring that number up to 1,233 deer; with an average harvest rate of 97 deer that would leave a surplus of approximately 180 deer giving Greenwich an increase of 18.8% in its deer population per year. In just 5 years the population would double.

Greenwich with a deer population of 30 dpsm would have a surplus deer population of approximately 328, and a growth rate of 22.4%.

Greenwich, CT has only shown a neutral population growth rate over the last 6 years.

From: longbeard
19-Jul-16
Airrow I don't believe they numbers have to be up that high like they were way back when. But, if they are at 7 -10 dpsm now, I wouldn't mind seeing them up around the 12 - 14 dpsm mark. That little boost in numbers, would be a great boost to the overall hunting experience. About 2 years back, in late January I was sitting in one of my favorite trees. That night I had 15 deer under my stand; 9 bucks and 6 does. That was the most deer I had seen at once in a long, long time and I haven't seen that many together since. Keep in mind it was very, very cold and I was feeding, so I'm sure some of those deer were brought in from more than a mile away. My point is, even without shooting any of those deer it was an exciting hunt just because of the deer sightings. That's all a hunter can ask for!

From: Dr. Williams
19-Jul-16

Dr. Williams's embedded Photo
Dr. Williams's embedded Photo
Glen, this has been your mantra all along: “By sampling only fractions of the town, the DEEP surveys can only reliably report the number of deer in those fractions. The CT DEEP attempts to extrapolate the results as town-wide numbers and as a result their numbers are grossly overstated.”

Then why later in the post do you extrapolate your numbers to the unsurveyed area and say “. . . the survey states 313 deer for 43 square miles ( all areas north of Rt 95 ); add the areas south of Rt 95 approximately 4.8 square miles times 7.27 dpsm = 34.89 deer + 313 deer = 348 deer total in Greenwich, CT 2016?” Isn’t this directly counter to what you just previously stated about DEEP techniques extrapolating numbers to unsurveyed areas?

You also say “Wildlife seek out preferred habitat in a town and will never be equally distributed in any town.” This I do not disagree with, but why then are you using the entire land area, including developed land, water, and impervious surfaces, of Greenwich (48 square miles) to arrive at your deer density? Just as Toonces suggests, “. . .correct measure should be deer per square mile of available habitat.” That is how DEEP calculates their numbers, by available deer habitat, not by total land area.

Additionally, your attempt at modeling the neutral population growth has some pretty serious assumptions. For instance, as Spike78 points out, you are assuming 100% detection by a firm that is notorious for undercounting deer (http://shelterislandreporter.timesreview.com/2010/03/11/counting-on-deer-counts%E2%80%A9/) because like Pat said about the use of FLIR is that it is “. . .extremely problematic for this application. There will be lots of false positives and complete misses altogether.” Then there is your 29% fawn recruitment rate. Where did that number come from? And you presume that the only source of deer mortality in the Town of Greenwich is by archery hunting only. The attached image is from the 2014 Deer Program Summary and is where I am assuming you got that 97 number? But as you can see, there were an additional 2 killed with shotgun/rifle and 1 with a muzzleloader. And if you think there were 0 roadkill deer in Greenwich in 2014 with the Merritt and 95 running right through it, I mean yeah, sure. And then there is poaching, fences, old age, natural predation (64% of fawns in NW CT: http://www.bowsite.com/DB/forums/thread.cfm?forum=4&threadid=448620&MESSAGES=12&FF=4), unreported deer take, winter kill, etc, etc. So there are clearly a lot more sources of mortality than archery hunting alone as you propose, and if population growth is neutral which I can believe, then there have to be way more deer than VisionAir reported to sustain that mortality. If you say that killing 97 deer a year by archery hunting alone results in neutral growth at 7.27 deer/square mile, what happens when you add in all the other sources of mortality you are not accounting for? The population would have been driven to extinction and that is clearly not happening.

From: Will
19-Jul-16

Error Occurred While Processing Request The web site you are accessing has experienced an unexpected error.
Please contact the website administrator.


The following information is meant for the website developer for debugging purposes.
Error Occurred While Processing Request

Could not find the included template ThreadOwnerRemovedReplacetText.cfm.

Note: If you wish to use an absolute template path (for example, template="/mypath/index.cfm") with CFINCLUDE, you must create a mapping for the path using the ColdFusion Administrator. Or, you can use per-application settings to specify mappings specific to this application by specifying a mappings struct to THIS.mappings in Application.cfc.
Using relative paths (for example, template="index.cfm" or template="../index.cfm") does not require the creation of any special mappings. It is therefore recommended that you use relative paths with CFINCLUDE whenever possible.
 
The error occurred in D:\Bowsite\BOWSITE\tf\bgforums\thread.cfm: line 1058
Called from D:\Bowsite\BOWSITE\tf\bgforums\thread.cfm: line 476
Called from D:\Bowsite\BOWSITE\tf\bgforums\thread.cfm: line 1
1056 : <h3>Blocked By Thread Owner</h3>
1057 : <P>#ParagraphFormat(Body)#</P>
1058 : <cfelseif (ThreadOwnerRemove)eq 1><cfinclude template="ThreadOwnerRemovedReplacetText.cfm">
1059 : 
1060 : <cfelse>

Resources:

Browser   claudebot
Remote Address   172.70.39.196
Referrer   http://forums.bowsite.com/TF/bgforums/thread.cfm?threadid=455054&messages=1&forum=4
Date/Time   29-Mar-24 09:28 AM
Stack Trace
at cfthread2ecfm1423711020._factor13(D:\Bowsite\BOWSITE\tf\bgforums\thread.cfm:1058) at cfthread2ecfm1423711020._factor14(D:\Bowsite\BOWSITE\tf\bgforums\thread.cfm:476) at cfthread2ecfm1423711020.runPage(D:\Bowsite\BOWSITE\tf\bgforums\thread.cfm:1)

coldfusion.tagext.lang.IncludeTag$NoSuchIncludeTemplateException: Could not find the included template ThreadOwnerRemovedReplacetText.cfm.
	at coldfusion.tagext.lang.IncludeTag.setTemplate(IncludeTag.java:349)
	at cfthread2ecfm1423711020._factor13(D:\Bowsite\BOWSITE\tf\bgforums\thread.cfm:1058)
	at cfthread2ecfm1423711020._factor14(D:\Bowsite\BOWSITE\tf\bgforums\thread.cfm:476)
	at cfthread2ecfm1423711020.runPage(D:\Bowsite\BOWSITE\tf\bgforums\thread.cfm:1)
	at coldfusion.runtime.CfJspPage.invoke(CfJspPage.java:231)
	at coldfusion.tagext.lang.IncludeTag.doStartTag(IncludeTag.java:416)
	at coldfusion.filter.CfincludeFilter.invoke(CfincludeFilter.java:65)
	at coldfusion.filter.ApplicationFilter.invoke(ApplicationFilter.java:363)
	at coldfusion.filter.RequestMonitorFilter.invoke(RequestMonitorFilter.java:48)
	at coldfusion.filter.MonitoringFilter.invoke(MonitoringFilter.java:40)
	at coldfusion.filter.PathFilter.invoke(PathFilter.java:87)
	at coldfusion.filter.ExceptionFilter.invoke(ExceptionFilter.java:70)
	at coldfusion.filter.ClientScopePersistenceFilter.invoke(ClientScopePersistenceFilter.java:28)
	at coldfusion.filter.BrowserFilter.invoke(BrowserFilter.java:38)
	at coldfusion.filter.NoCacheFilter.invoke(NoCacheFilter.java:46)
	at coldfusion.filter.GlobalsFilter.invoke(GlobalsFilter.java:38)
	at coldfusion.filter.DatasourceFilter.invoke(DatasourceFilter.java:22)
	at coldfusion.filter.CachingFilter.invoke(CachingFilter.java:53)
	at coldfusion.CfmServlet.service(CfmServlet.java:200)
	at coldfusion.bootstrap.BootstrapServlet.service(BootstrapServlet.java:89)
	at jrun.servlet.FilterChain.doFilter(FilterChain.java:86)
	at coldfusion.monitor.event.MonitoringServletFilter.doFilter(MonitoringServletFilter.java:42)
	at coldfusion.bootstrap.BootstrapFilter.doFilter(BootstrapFilter.java:46)
	at jrun.servlet.FilterChain.doFilter(FilterChain.java:94)
	at jrun.servlet.FilterChain.service(FilterChain.java:101)
	at jrun.servlet.ServletInvoker.invoke(ServletInvoker.java:106)
	at jrun.servlet.JRunInvokerChain.invokeNext(JRunInvokerChain.java:42)
	at jrun.servlet.JRunRequestDispatcher.invoke(JRunRequestDispatcher.java:286)
	at jrun.servlet.ServletEngineService.dispatch(ServletEngineService.java:543)
	at jrun.servlet.jrpp.JRunProxyService.invokeRunnable(JRunProxyService.java:203)
	at jrunx.scheduler.ThreadPool$DownstreamMetrics.invokeRunnable(ThreadPool.java:320)
	at jrunx.scheduler.ThreadPool$ThreadThrottle.invokeRunnable(ThreadPool.java:428)
	at jrunx.scheduler.ThreadPool$UpstreamMetrics.invokeRunnable(ThreadPool.java:266)
	at jrunx.scheduler.WorkerThread.run(WorkerThread.java:66)