YEAR 2 INTERIM REPORT 2014 CDC/CAES Lyme Disease Research Redding, Connecticut by White Buffalo, Inc. 9 April 2014
INTRODUCTION The Town of Redding contains a matrix of suburban and commercial development, parks, and other open-spaces. Although hunting occurs through the Town deer densities are considered to be in excess of what is considered compatible with some land use and human activities. In particular, there is ongoing concern regarding incidence of Lyme disease. This is the second year in which a deer population reduction research program was implemented.
METHODS Initial pre-baiting was conducted from 7– 30 January 2014 with an anticipated sharpshooting start date of 3 February. The permit was suspended until another population estimate was conducted and permit revisions were made. Therefore, pre-baiting was suspended and then again initiated 20 February and continued through 2 March 2014. Sharpshooting efforts began on 3 March and continued through 29 March 2014. Eighteen days of fieldwork were required to achieve the harvest of 25 deer. We followed the operations protocol outlined in the permit. Five sites were available throughout the area of operation. We discontinued the use of one site due to the homeowner being continually harassed by a neighboring property owner who was in opposition to the research.
RESULTS The entire data set generated from harvested deer is represented in the spreadsheet entitled "Redding, CT - Deer Harvest: 3-29 March 2014 (Appendix A). The overall harvest demographics are summarized in Table 1. Harvest by day is summarized in Table 2, and harvest by location is represented in Table 3. We expended ~258 person-hours for the sharpshooting activities (25 deer harvested) resulting in 10.3 person-hours per deer harvested. Fifty-eight percent (17 of 29 work sessions) of the field efforts resulted in no deer harvested.
Table 1. Sex and age class of deer harvested in Redding, Connecticut from 3- 29 March 2014. AGE # MALE (%) # FEMALE (%) # COMBINED Yearling/Adult 4 (16%) 12 (48%) 16 (61%) Fawns 5 (20%) 4 (16%) 9 (39%) Total 9 (36%) 16 (64%) 25 (100%)
Table 2. Number of deer harvested by day during the 18 days of field operations. DATE # Harvested DATE # Harvested DATE # Harvested DATE # Harvested 3/3/14 0 3/15/14 0 3/21/14 2 3/27/14 0 3/4/14 0 3/17/14 0 3/22/14 0 3/28/14 4 3/7/14 1 3/18/14 1 3/24/14 9 3/29/14 2 3/8/14 1 3/19/14 1 3/25/14 2 3/10/14 1 3/20/14 0 3/26/14 1
Table 3. Number of deer harvested by location (i.e., street). LOCATION
# Harvested Seventy Acre Road 7 Wood Road 9 Black Rock Tpke 2 Topledge Road 5 Topstone Road 2
DISCUSSION A concerted effort was put forth to identify and obtain access to private properties. After identifying 67 potentially suitable sharpshooting locations within the two one-mile2 study areas only 5 landowners volunteered to participate in the research project in Year 2. Two landowners withdrew their property from the research between year one and two. One landowner withdrew their property for undisclosed reasons and the second withdrew due to continual harassment by individuals from the Redding Sportsman’s Alliance who is opposed to the research. The original project design was to have 12 points of access; six in each of the two study areas. Of particular concern is the lack of access in the Pheasant Ridge study area during Year 2. With only two sites, in close proximity to each other, large portions of the study area were unaffected by our efforts. Securing additional culling sites in each study area will prove to be beneficial in the future.
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) made a verbal request that deer reductions not occur before a meeting scheduled 9 January 2014 (the original permit was issued on 28 January 2013 that allow for culling activities to take place from 1 January – 31 March for each year of the research). During this meeting, at the request of sportsmen, an updated population estimate was now required before taking could occur and a new permit could be issued. This population estimate was not required under the issuance of the original permit.
Weather conditions were not conducive to conducting a helicopter snow count until 24 January 2014 (A helicopter snow count was conducted on 24 January 2014 by Dr. Scott Williams and a report was submitted the same day). This delay decreased the efficiency of the program significantly. The person-hours associated with pre-baiting in January 2014, under the assumption the permit would be reissued without further restrictions, and mobilization and de-mobilization costs associated with the delay and reissuance of the permit, added significantly to the overall cost of the program. The permit was reissued on 7 February 2014 (signed on 6 February 2014), thirteen days after an updated population estimate was provided, and allowed for a reduced take of no more than 25 deer in calendar year 2014 without prior consent from the DEEP Commissioner. After losing the original available work opportunity other commitments prevented us from conducting operations in Redding until 3 March 2014.
The delay and reduction in available days to work (permit expiration 31 March 2014) made it extremely unlikely that the population goals set forth in the research outline would have been achieved in 2014. Recreational hunting is prevalent throughout the Town of Redding with numerous automatic feeding devices observed during the helicopter snow counts. This has created a residual deer population that is extremely leery of bait. This behavior significantly affects our ability to address deer in the study areas. In addition, those individuals opposed to the research initiative placed alternative feed in the study areas to draw deer away from the culling locations. Fifty-five percent (17 of 29 man-days) of the effort resulted in no deer harvested, reflecting the wariness of deer because of hunting pressure and the availability of alternative artificial food resources.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank the following individuals and organizations for assistance and support provided prior to and during the culling period; Doug Hartline (Redding Health Department), Julia Pemberton (Town First Selectman), Dr. Kirby Stafford and Dr. Scott Williams (Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station), Georgina Scholl and David Streit. We also would like to thank Lee and Elica Sabo from Large Game Company (venison processing for charitable donation). Finally, we would like to express our gratitude to the Hunt to Feed program for their financial support to process carcasses.
Appendix A Redding – Deer Harvest: 3-29 March 2014 DATE TAG # SEX AGE Street Address # FETUSES 3/7/14 0101 M 2.8 Black Rock 3/8/14 0102 F 3.8 Black Rock 1 3/10/14 0103 F 5.8 Wood 3 3/18/14 0104 M 1.8 Topledge 3/19/14 0105 F 4.8 Wood 2 3/21/14 0106 F 2.8 Topledge 1 3/21/14 0107 F .8 Topledge 0 3/24/14 0108 F 6.8+ Seventy Acre 2 3/24/14 0109 F 3.8 Seventy Acre 2 3/24/14 0110 F 2.8 Seventy Acre 2 3/24/14 0111 F 2.8 Wood 2 3/24/14 0112 F 1.8 Wood 1 3/24/14 0113 M .8 Wood 3/24/14 0114 M .8 Wood 3/24/14 0115 F .8 Seventy Acre 0 3/24/14 0116 M .8 Seventy Acre 3/25/14 0117 M 1.8 Topstone 3/25/14 0118 M 2.8 Topledge 3/26/14 0119 F 1.8 Topledge 1 3/28/14 0120 F 6.8+ Topstone 2 3/28/14 0121 M .8 Wood 3/28/14 0122 F .8 Wood 0 3/28/14 0123 M .8 Wood 3/29/14 0124 F 4.8 Seventy Acre 5 3/29/14 0125 F .8 Seventy Acre 0
Also note that lack of deer harvested is blamed on the opposition counter baiting and local hunting pressure making the deer wary, while no consideration is given to the possiblity that there just aren't that many deer around to harvest.
Your point about the feeders is very well made. What you're seeing is the classic example of wanting an outcome and then twisting the "facts" to fit that outcome.
Of course if they can spot feeders they can spot deer! But look at the wording from WB and you can see they blame everything for the low harvest numbers but the real reason-fewer deer. If you ignore the obvious cause (fewer deer) how do you spin your story? It's "harrassment" from the opposition, it's "competitive feeding" from other bait sources; everything to hide the truth.
This is exactly the type of spin campaign you get when you are dealing with an entity with an agenda; White Buffalo is interested in making money and the acknowledgement by them of lower deer numbers impacts their ability to make money.
Their "statement" had to be about the most self-serving tripe I've ever seen, and in CT that's really saying something.
