Bowsite.com

I congratulate Bill Hyatt and Rick Jacobson on a good move. These men have it right, Valid data is critical. Good for them.

Confident scientists, invite peer-review. To suggest anyone is beyond reproach, is to be naive on how these things work.

Doesn't the fact that he Uses a "correction factor" Of 2; And you use a "correction factor" Of 1.2, Suggest that the technique needs to be evaluated?

Perhaps you don't live in the real world, but having techniques questioned, tested, and improved upon is what drives things forward.

Instead if how you descibe it, I see this as a bold, and courageous move.

Again I will ask why you feel your opinion supercedes that of the CT deer biologist, a well published individual with a PH. D and a certified wildlife biologist? And you sit here and preach to me of exposing my credentials why? Why does it matter? If you buy a hunting license you clearly know better than anyone who has dedicated their professional lives to the field. Why does the state attempt density estimates using published scientific methodology because you guys clearly already know the answer? Perhaps we should use airplanes and ground surveys instead. I'm swallowing my puke right now. $50 clearly puts you guys in the know. And the state is empowering you. Ugg. . .

:-)

I Love it, an institutionalized mindset, can't cope with the concept of government employees working for the people. The rumor seems to be correct......

1. Wildlife Director asks biologist to review his techniques to cater to you guys. 2. Biologist creates a presentation validating his methodology with pertinent scientific literature, presents it to you guys, and there are no questions from the audience because you don't know what he said. 3. DEEP suits are satisfied, so they continue on using scientifically validated methodology as they have been for years. 4. The conspiracy theorist hunters disagree and continue to post on Bowsite how they think the DEEP is full of BS, ask for new methods, and make false claims about how many deer they think are on the ground based on "intuition", ground surveys, and airplane flights.

I think the Director feels that with improved transparency, you guys will see the light. My synopsis is that you will not be happy until you get the answer you want, no matter who you have to jump in bed with. And the funny thing is, I know that I am right. And despite that, you guys, though you detest my sentiments here, will prove every one of the statements I just made correct. I've been around the block a couple times boys, and you are very predictable. Surprise me please.

Bb. I haven't a clue what you are talking about. DEEP manages wildlife based on public opinion. You guys are the minority. Remember that.

Got it...LMAO. Deep must have missed the memo.....Don;t let it get your panties in a wad.

I don't know, I thought my drivel was at least on a par with your well thought out posts, you know the adage....when in Rome.... LOL

"Name calling and so-called "insults" mean I've won."

Lotta self proclaiming going on here.....keep telling yourself that, somebody has to believe it, it might as well be you.

Crow, did you truly just revert to the female anatomy as an insult? Between you and BB's panty reference, I'm beginning to question some of you guys. Hmmmmm. Starting to make sense here. . .

Why do you sound so upset?

The transect methodology used and the "correction factor(s) used have been scientifically validated-period.

OK, now before any of you start hyperventilating some context; the methods have been validated but they must be understood in proper context. This method is a means to estimate a population, it is not an exact population count.

Let's start our journey towards a better understanding. In the transect method of population sampling aerial surveys are down on transects and then numbers obtained are extrapolated to give an estimated population. The better application of the methodology would be analyze trends within the group sampled; decreasing, stable or increasing.

This trending analysis would be a more suitable application as the same sample areas could be compared using the same methodology with the same equipment, same conditions and ideally the same operators.

Let's work with an example with some numbers to try and make better sense of this. A town is surveyed by this methodology and two transects are flown; a 4-mile transect and a 6-mile transect. The town in question encompasses 32 square miles so the transects represent slightly less than 1/3 of the total square mileage.

The deer counted (with correction facor applied) in the two transects yield a total count of 580 deer for an average of 58 deer/sq mile. That number for that area is perfectly valid and scientifically validated. To extrapolate that though to the entire land area of the town would not be. To establish your "low" end of the population you'd use the lowest possible number for the total sq miles and you'd end up with 18 deer/sq mile, your "high" number being the 58 deer/sq mile and you'd arrive at a mean estimated population fo 38 deer/sq mile.

One could make a very valid point that the density for the town as a whole would be closer to the mean than the high number. Why? Well, as the survey is conducted in the winter when deer tend to yard up one would expect to find high concentration areas and also to find an equal or greater number of areas with much lower numbers.

OK, but how can you prove that that last paragraph wasn't pure fantasy island stuff?

Well, lets look at an example of a census method of counting a population. Using FLIR (Forward-looking Infrared) it is possible to do an actual census of a population. One such study was actually done in CT (Westport) in March of 2013. The outcome of this study was a population of 26-30 deer/sq mile. I found this to be interesting given the transect method of population estimation had produced a deer density estimation of between 30-60 deer/sq mile (2000, 2004) showing a stable or declining deer herd.

Interesting given the ban on hunting in Westport. Where did the deer go? Or, were they ever there to begin with?

As good as science is if misapplied or misunderstood it's about as good as drawing teats on a bull and trying to pass it off as a milk cow.

I'm attaching a couple of links so you can all read up on the two methods I've outlined and draw your own conclusions.

http://ecosystems.psu.edu/youth/sftrc/deer/wtd-lesson5

http://www.westportct.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=5789

Also, the female anatomy and undergarments are hardly insulting to me. Perhaps they are to you? Seems telling. . .

Step back and look at all your posts and see how ridiculous you sound. You keep going. We are laughing at you.

Ooooooo, Me thinks that was an insult. damn, I hate when that happens, Kinda makes you think you aren't being taken seriously...

"I go with 40 years in Redding and 2 eyes that's. My count no airplane"

Steve, it sort of reminds me of that old line: 'who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?' And let's not forget the line from that Delbert song: "All, ya'll witnessed what I said he done".

Sometimes watching a self induced self destruction is kind of pathetic, but this one might be different. Who was making that popcorn?

Now for some professional advice, (which I am certain you will ignore, to your detriment):

- Update that resume, you're sure to need it.

I'm sure there is a job out there for a pompous PhD with a poor ability to communicate with the public; and an absolute inability to admit that he just might not know everything.

Crow, perhaps if you are questioning my credibility as an "anonimous [sic] genious [sic]", you might want to spell check both "anonymous" and "genius" to lend credibility to your argument. Else, try again dude and see who truly sounds "ridiculous." Seriously bro, you are making this WAY too easy for old Odo. Keep it coming. . .

I do agree with one thing, I don't expect anything to change. I'll say it again, it couldn't hurt reviewing scientific procedures, techniques and methodologies associated with these survey estimates.

I'm glad that the DEEP is open to listening and double checking their numbers. The worst that could happen is they are proven wrong and need to modify their numbers, but at least they'll be more accurate. The best that could happen as that the hunters that requested the review are shown the numbers are correct and all of this debating can stop.

Both of these outcomes are beneficial.

When I went to school I was told that Pluto was a planet, today are children are told it's not. I wonder if counting planets uses the same scientific methods as counting deer?

I'm glad that the DEEP is open to listening and double checking their numbers. The worst that could happen is they are proven wrong and need to modify their numbers, but at least they'll be more accurate. The best that could happen as that the hunters that requested the review are shown the numbers are correct and all of this debating can stop.

Both of these outcomes are beneficial.

When I went to school I was told that Pluto was a planet, today are children are told it's not. I wonder if counting planets uses the same scientific methods as counting deer?

You are just jelous that I can spell the same words in different ways and you can't.

Please point me to any post of mine either directly or indirectly referencing you in which I have stooped to insults.

I can appreciate a difference of opinion; being a scientist it is generally a pre-ordained outcome. Most, if not all of the scientists I have disagreed with have not felt the need to such tactics.

Secondly, the mean of the sample population was 38 (as was pointed out, not 58) and you cannot assume a higher range than what was actually measured so your upper limit absent additional sampling has to be set at 58. If you had put as much thought into your response on the statistics and less on the insults you would have realized the fallacy of your statement; absent "real" numbers if one took your position then why stop at 98 (forgetting for a moment that number is incorrect); if we're discussing theoretical deer why not make the upper limit 500? 1,000?

Thank you for acknowledging it would be insulting to assign the mean of a distribution to the upper limit. Now if you feel like wiping the egg off of your face and trying again, by all means do, and this time try a little humility.

As to "playing again" take some advice; lose that boulder on the shoulder. What I respect most about people who have disagreed with a thesis of mine is the manner in which they have conducted themselves while disagreeing. Next time I'm at a scientific forum I'll ask around the room for who uses "nice try, play again" when conducting peer review or offering a contrary thesis.

Lastly, it seems you conveniently skipped over the tie-in with a census method versus a sampling/extrapolation method. The point which either eluded you or you chose to ignore was to show what most here would consider a highly unlikely scenario if the sampling/extrapolation method were the more accurate; absent hunting a stable or declining deer herd. The fact that the lower limit almost perfectly matches up to a census method does not invalidate my point, it actually lends considerable weight to it.

One parting thought; in my life's journey I've often found it to be the case that when your positions are attacked with insults and not countered with facts it's usually a pretty good indication that you've made your point and it didn't sit well with the person responding.

As someone said in a recent national debate, "You are entitled to your own opionion, but not your own facts."

you're correct, I remember the post because I think he was discussing why he hunts in a thread I started where I stated I haven't shot a deer in 15 years, but choice and not because of opportunity. He was a meat hunter and used it for his family, just the opposite of myself.

As far as the FLIR flight in Westport, that company is notorious for underestimating abundances due to technique and equipment limitations. In the case of that flight, it was a low ball estimate. So the hunters know that and finally have a technique that returns the answer that they are looking for, that densities are actually low (when clearly they are not). No wonder they were pushing for this at the CAC meeting. But to do FLIR as a statewide estimator is super expensive and not reliable in clustered house areas due to visibility limitations.

You are unbelievable. When it convenient for you the methods works and are accurate. When it isn’t, the company is notorious for underestimating abundances due to technique and equipment limitations

Just accept it. When Mike spanked you with scientific methodology you had no comeback so you attacked him.

Please continue to amaze us

I have been bowhunting a long time (this will be my 30th season in CT) and I have seen the deer herd grow to very high densities in the early 2000's and now steadily decline. I do not hunt FFLD county...I hunt the middle of the state, and the deer sightings, sign and harvest numbers all have dramatically dipped in recent years. Poor acorn crops, bad winters, increase in predators, loss of habitat due to building, maturation of state forests-no browse, too many does shot etc.

Please, I personally want an enjoyable experience when I bowhunt. To me this means plenty or deer sightings, close encounters and the ability to take one or two deer for the table each year.

I also don't understand why anyone needs, wants, hopes for several deer in one season, especially on state land where the numbers are low to begin with. If you have private land and want to wipe out the herd, have at it. I know that some of us hunt for the meat, but killing the goose that lays the golden egg is not the solution to meat problem.

We are stewards of this resource and it's our responsibility and duty to maintain it at healthy levels for the next generation, with or without ticks.

BS: self explanatory MS: more of the same PhD: Piled higher and Deeper.

PhD does not necessarily mean they know everything. I am willing to bet many of the hunters you malign are highly educated. Some of us even have a piece of paper that says so. Some of us are just pretty well educated even without the paper. Eyes on target are ALWAYS more accurate than 'intelligence' or remote recon.

What did I say about bedside manner???? I rest my case.

Here's a tip for you Odo... at this stage of your bow site existence, it matters not if you're 100% correct in your argument...You have proven to be a flaming jerk and right or wrong, no one cares what you have to say, you're becoming background noise.

V, if deer censusing is as easy as you claim, why all the controversy here? Tell you what, you arrange it and do it for yourself, and then the rest of us will tell you your methods stink and that you are conspiring with the state to kill more deer.

Bloodtrail. I completely agree with everything you said, including your assessment of the state herd. I'm referring to FF County and the Shoreline zones when I rant here. The guys who say they can reduce deer for public health and quit before reduction of any significance. So instead of actually doing what they say, as densities fall and deer move into non-hunted properties and become nocturnal, they claim densities are low already, but can't prove it, so then they push for a company that is known for returning low density estimates when two other agencies' surveys are in line with one another around 35-40/sm.

BowVA. Ok, like I haven't heard those acronyms defined before. Call Howard and talk to him, or send him an email. And debate aerial survey methodology with him. I think you will be satisfied with his qualifications. And I'm not sure what your "eyes on target" line even means. Do you mean that all people with Ph Ds are morons and you should not trust their research in their own fields? That someone who likes to archery hunt a couple Saturdays a year has equal if not more credibility than someone who has dedicated their professional, academic, and personal lives to the field? It is clear that you guys will align yourselves with whomever will give you the answer you want to hear. It's the same mentality as the PETA. Same.

Bb, clearly I am background noise. Clearly no one here is paying attention to me.

Uh, no, the example I used was a representative transect sample of an actual CT town in FF County. A quick google search can confirm this.

you said with correction, 580 deer were counted on 10 square miles.

The good news here is that you are still following along.

In no way does that average 38 deer/sm mile with an upper limit of 58.

And quickly you have run off the track.

The average is 58 (580/10=58) with an upper confidence limit of far more and a lower limit far less.

The mean is 38 regardless of how many times you protest for the following basic and immutable reason; the sample count was extrapolated and reported out as a total count for the total square miles (32) of the town. If the sample from 10 miles is extrapolated out then your lower limit will be the total amount of deer counted (with correction) divided by the total square miles (32) which is 18.

The upper limit cannot be an amount greater than that which was actually counted, hence it is 58. The mean of the upper and lower limits (18+58/2) is 38.

It is really simple actually.

And in spite of this you managed to get it wrong. Not only that in your first comeback you made the claim I gave a mean of 58; you were wrong and not surprisingly you lack the character to admit the error.

The only one making things complicated at the moment is you. It is a very simple and straightforward statistical analysis, one the average 8th grader could perform and arrive at exactly the same answer I posted.

I don't know, but your bias toward a lower outcome is clear as day and hardly scientific.

Actually I'm glad you make this point; clearly the person with an obvious bias is you. I find it hard to believe you are so obtuse that a clearly stated statistical analysis so befuddles you. What is more likely is you simply don't like the answer and need to resort to equal parts obfuscation and childish name-calling; by the way you didn't address my opening about showing where in any post I have ever been disrepctful towards you.

Don't bother on my account; lukewarm and insincere apologies have never done much for me.

The scientific points I have made are beyond dispute, all your histrionics aside. The PSU study I posted, along with a good one from San Jose State University and a host of others readily obtainable with a brief google survey all state the same thing; the transect survey is best applied to studying population trends; not extrapolating out to report populations over unsampled areas. It is good science in principle, but a misapplied application.

The only reliable method for a census (at present at least) is FLIR. The example I posted did not hide it's shortcomings and was put out there (along with the PSU paper) to let people read both sides and make their own decisions. That is hardly an example of bias. You may want to look up the meaning of the word and then scrutinize your posts.

My "bias" is towards properly applied science and I have presented both sides towards that end. You would like to convey that appearance and that explains your comment about my having a preferred outcome. Personally I find the comment laughable given how much I've gone out of the way to be transparent and show all sources. Of course you've shown a propensity for ad hominem when your theses are questioned so same old, same old.

I have tried up to this point to extend to you the benefit of the doubt and not to conclude that the opinion of some of the posters that you are the same person choosing to be the latest version of the internet troll is true.

Your behavior has made that extension difficult to continue. I can understand and respect passion in one's belief; there is never however any justification for attacks without provocation nor the churlish behavior in general.

You can continue to put your fingers in your ears and be belligerent until the cows come home; the answer is still the same. You are wrong.

Now would be a good time to take stock of your conduct and ask yourself if it's something to take pride in.

Personally I'd be embarrassed; at this point I doubt you have that capacity even when clearly called for...

I said: with correction, 580 deer were counted on 10 square miles.

You: The good news here is that you are still following along.

Me: In no way does that average 38 deer/sm mile with an upper limit of 58.

You: And quickly you have run off the track.

You: The upper limit cannot be an amount greater than that which was actually counted, hence it is 58. The mean of the upper and lower limits (18+58/2) is 38.

Last time I checked, 18 plus 58/2 was 47. 58 / 2 = 29 + 18 = 47. This makes no sense in terms of determining density and your math is wrong anyway. And of course the upper limit can exceed the mean!! Half the samples you gathered are more than the mean man!

Mike. Seriously. You talk a smart game with some big words but we are talking 4th grade math here. If you have 580 deer on 10 units of area, the average or mean if you will, is 58 deer/unit area. Let me set it up another way. There are 10 units of area, right? Each have 58 deer on them right? 58 +58 +58 +58 +58 +58 +58 +58 +58 +58 = 580.

Do you not understand confidence intervals and standard error? If the mean is 58, the standard error is plus or minus that. When calculating mean from sample populations, you take the sum of those samples and divide by the count. So it is likely that half the samples will be greater than the mean and half smaller than the mean, unless of course you have whopper outliers on either side. Standard error measures the distribution of your sample means and is calculated by taking the standard deviation of the sample means and dividing that by the square root of the count.

Here, if we sample 10 individual square miles and apply whatever correction and we come up with these counts: 54, 75, 92, 45, 34, 75, 21, 36, 104, 44 = 580

Mean = 58

Standard deviation = 27.2

Count = 10

Standard error = (27.2 / (10^.5)) = 8.6

So in this instance, the density would be 58 deer/square mile + or – 8.6. Or 49.4 - 66.6 deer/square mile. Never, ever, ever could the mean of 580 individuals on 10 units of area be 38, regardless of spread and standard error! And the upper limit certainly can be and is always higher than the sample mean!!!! How much higher depends on the distribution of the sample means, in this case, the standard error is 8.6!!! If anyone should be embarrassed, it’s you. You are completely and utterly wrong and yet you are trying to call me out??

I feel like I am on Candid Camera. Am I? Seriously. Are you setting me up?

I cannot even begin to address the rest of your post as this is so ridiculous. If you sample a portion of town you don’t thin out the mean using the lower limit unless of course you are trying to make it appear there are fewer deer on the landscape than there are for some reason. I am not sure where your data are from but I had to assume they were fictitious. If someone samples 10 square miles and reports a mean density on those 10 square miles, that is accurate and is actually the population mean for that area. If someone else wants to extrapolate those numbers to a townwide scenario, you would then assume that there were 58 deer on each of the square miles within the town, derived from your sample surveys. So in your example, there are 58 deer/sm on 32 square miles = 1,856 deer in that town (58 * 32 = 1856). Basic man, basic.

If you do it your way your actually dividing 58 by 2 then adding 18 which equals 47.

You are right this is fourth grade math. That hole your digging must be getting over your head by now.

Here is a link for fourth graders struggling with math.

http://www.mathsisfun.com/mean.html

It seems your reading comprehension skills are right up there with your math skills; I know Barnes & Noble carries Math for Dummies, haven't checked into a version for reading comprehension though.

To calculate the mean you would add 18 to 58 and divide the sum by 2. How's that shoe leather tasting by the way?

Like I said, check into some reading comprehension skills; what I said was the upper limit cannot exceed the actual upper limit counted which was 58. I don't know about your math teacher but I'm pretty sure most would not argue that 58 is more than 38. Well, maybe if he's from Redding and hates deer he might....

Do you not understand confidence intervals and standard error?

Yes, but you don't obviously as it is standard deviation not standard error.

At this rate you will have up to your groin in your mouth in another post or two tops....

If you sample a portion of town you don’t thin out the mean using the lower limit unless of course you are trying to make it appear there are fewer deer on the landscape than there are for some reason.

I actually love that statement because you really hung yourself out to dry on that one; think about that from the reverse; if you only sample 1/3 of a town you don't extrapolate that count to the entire town as that would make it appear there are more deer on the landscape than there are. Sound familiar yet?

Now if your statement is true (it's not but let's pretend for an illustration of how out of your depth you are) then the reverse application must also be true as the variables are the same.

The reason you're wrong though is again simple math (well for 99.9% of the people here); extrapolation is an estimate, actual census is real numbers. Extrapolating is either going to over or under represent an actual population as you do not account for all unknowns in the unsurveyed area.

if someone else wants to extrapolate those numbers to a townwide scenario, you would then assume that there were 58 deer on each of the square miles within the town, derived from your sample surveys.

Or you could assume there were 0 deer on each of the unsurveyed square miles or you could assume any number between your upper and lower limits. In all cases you would be assuming and you could be assuming incorrectly.

Hint-that's why they're called assumptions and not called facts.

If anyone should be embarrassed, it’s you. You are completely and utterly wrong and yet you are trying to call me out??

Since you're exceptionally slow on the draw let's pretend I'm drawing you stick figures in crayon;

You have no idea what you're talking about. You have read simple sentences and either deliberately or by virtue of being flustered have posited responses with erroneous numbers. Those flaws have been highlighted.

You should be embarrassed by your conduct, specifically when you have clearly (even to you) been shown to be wrong on facts. You have chosen to be a small petty person and not be. Don't fret, I won't lose any sleep over it.

You have responded with smarm and attempted to be belittling (I say attempted because being so wrong kind of negates the belittling and actually makes you look like the business end of a horse) and have done so to someone who had always accorded you an adult-level respect. You have thus far not addressed this and yes, for that if you had a lick of sense and a smidgen of maturity you would feel ashamed and embarrassed about.

You have the comportment of the typical 6-year old spoiled brat on the playground; when someone refuses to kow-tow to your world view you throw the equivalent of a 6-year old brat's temper tantrum. You're doing it now.

Adults do not behave thusly. The redeeming facet of the 6-year old brat though is that they usually end their tirade by taking their ball and going home. You however feel the need to showcase your boorishness ad infinatum, ad naseum. Grow up.

Come back when you can conduct yourself like an adult. You might even gain the unforeseen benefit of learning something. Perhaps you should ponder the wisdom of having 2 ears and one mouth. God had the good sense to offer those appendages in that ratio.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations

Man, you told him to play again and gave you a beating. Take your ball and go home. Actually you had no ball. Crawl back under the rock.

Let me know if I spelled something wrong.

The obvious retort is "you've got to be kidding me" but sadly I know this is not the case. I responded in the past with respect to your posts without fail; go back and check your response to me on this thread; hardly respectful. Pot meet kettle. By the way when I initially challenged you to point out where in any response to you I had not been respectful I was met with a chorus of crickets. Coward.

Tell me again what the mean of 580 deer on 10 square miles

Why do you insist on being purposefully obtuse? Can the act and re-read what I have written this time with comprehension. Either that or own up to the tactic and quit playing games. I've explained that when someone surveys 1/3 of an area and reports a population for the entire area then the actual limits are derived from that denominator and not the smaller sample. In the case I've made and which you're pretending to not understand the denominator would be 32 and 580/32 is 18.125. With the upper limit of 58 (known) your mean is 38.

I will engage you in a conversation about standard error v standard deviation and all the other nonsense you are throwing out there.

Then stop conflating the two terms; it's clear you don't understand how they are applied. Here's a link to clarify:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1255808/

When the population is an estimate and not an actual number (extrapolation of a sample size) it is impossible to measure the standard error; you don't have an actual population from which the sample is a derivation.

In order to talk smack and insult me, you must have your act together and know your stuff.

A perfect manifestation of your lack of maturity; presenting contrary facts hardly talking "smack". That corollary is laughable and speaks to your fixation not on getting to the answer to a problem but in being perceived as being the winner of an argument.

I hope you notice I used the term "winner" and not "right". I don't think it even matters to you.

As I said earlier I gave you the benefit of the doubt as to who you were and your intentions. No longer; you've made it obvious that you're 3 sides of the same coin and lack the integrity to just post under the one. You are not here to educate or inform, nor are you here to be the paragon defender of bowhunting you like to try and cast yourself as. You are here quite simply to be an irritant.

Grow up. When you can comport yourself as an adult and offer something of value to the conversation by all means please do.

Your continued attempts to misrepresent what I've posted certainly don't paint a picture of someone interested in honest debate.

Like Vermonster with his order of operations. Or Airrow with his percentages!! And thanks for the 2 cents BB. Laughable. . . Yes!

Scott Williams letter dated 2/20/14......." Despite our removal of 30 deer from the area in 2013, they counted 36 deer on the 1 square mile in your vicinity. If you apply an 80% detection, that results in 45 deer/square mile which is higher than DEEP`s estimate for all of Fairfield County ( 40/ square mile ). The scientific literature states that deer densities of 10/ square mile will see a corresponding decrease in deer tick abundances and associated tick-born disease risk. Your neighborhood is 4.5 times that density. "

This is the same 1 square mile that Scott Williams said had under 10 dpsm in January of 2013... Looks like Magic to me !........I have a copy of the original letter should anyone like me to email.

You hit the nail on the head.

Honestly, it's not worth the effort to try and have an adult conversation with him. He's actually just become a source for some cheap sophomoric entertainment. What he has to say is really irrelevant. His behavior is certainly not that of a professional attempting to educate the lowly masses. Background noise.

thanks for presenting a fact about the 45 DPSM, very refreshing.

Odo - you had me listening to you at one point, but have to say that your facts seem more and more like opinions and assumptions.

Seems like there are so many numbers that were/are being thrown out that the rest of us can take our pick as to which one we want to believe.

I agree with others that say boots on the ground is better than guessing, even if the guessing is using the scientific math.

Now I will step back and read the rest of my math lesson.

Also if you have 580 deer on 10 square miles the average number of deer on 1 square mile is 58 deer. All you do is 580/10.

Guys this is basic math you should have learned in Elementary school. How do I know I'm right? Because Im 4 classes away from getting a Bachelors degree in Mathematics.

Can I keep calling people names instead?

Williams deer counting method in test zones: 60x2=120-100=20. 20/2=10dpsm in the two test zones 10x2+51 killed=71. 71/2=35.5dpsm in the test zones at start of study

WTF. This is truly ridiculous.

Let's remember guys, professionals built the Titanic, and an amateur built the ark.

Are we having fun yet? Ah the off season!

I'm getting tired on this whole discussion.

Here's the bottomline: There are SOME deer in Redding, more or less. Some carry LD and some don't. Some people get LD and some don't. The ones that get LD are bitten by a tick and the ones that don't get LD aren't bitten by a tick.

Conclusion - don't get bitten by a tick, leave the damn deer alone and go after the tick.

Sorry Cory but with all due respect you are mistaken. I am calculating a mean and to do that you take the sum of all values and then divide by 2 (the total number of values in this example). In this case you have 18 and 58; the sum of those 2 values is 76. Now divide by 2 and you have 38. (See below)

The sample mean is the sum of all the observations divided by the number of observations:

?Xi/n (sorry about the question mark; the greek letter sigma doesn't work well I guess....)

In your case I recognize an honest mistake-we're good. You are also correct in that this is basic math and now that I've demonstrated there's nothing wrong with mine in this exaple perhaps we can move on.

Mike. What is the average of 580 deer on 10 square miles? Is it 38 deer/sm as you stated previously? Oh wait, now you've changed it to 32 square miles?

Not that there was any doubt but let's now add "liar" to "coward" on your less than impressive resume. Everyone here can read what I posted and I never changed anything to 32 square miles; this was clearly spelled out from the beginning.

The only person feverishly working to rewrite history is you and you are fooling no one-no one.

So now Dave (and let's grow a set and man up and drop the pretense; it's as tiring as the rest of your act) why not man up and admit you are the one with a predetermined bias and you lack the maturity to accept when a contrary view is not only presented, but scientifically validated.

Take a long shower son, maybe the water will help you grow a set. Without a doubt you have the worst case of your arrogance outstripping your intellect and skill set I've ever seen. Coupled with a complete lack of any sense you don't realize what a complete ass you come across as.

You want respect sunbeam? Act like a man and learn to disagree without all your sophomoric insults.

Now if you have the integrity to examine your writing and ask like a man for a do-over with the understanding you will at all times conduct yourself like an adult then I'm game.

If all you've got is the same pile of bs then grap it with both hands and put it where the sun doesn't shine. You have wasted enough of people's times with your infantile fixation on your place in the universe.

Grow up or get lost.

Kudos to both of you.

Now go shave that bug catcher. You scare me!

But guys I do have different views than you on WB and what they do. I dont dislike you because of that or think less of you. Well maybe I did with BBB a while back but he started to use :) when he types now.

Like Odo said before, WB is doing a study. The study is not just the culling of dear. They are testing out different theories/ideas (whatever you want to call them) that have nothing to do with deer. I say let them do their studies and let's review the data when they are done. The town should even get a 2nd opinion on the data results. I have to ignore all of the complaints made about WB about breaking laws. All it is is he said she said.

I wish you all could find some common ground. You all remind of of our government and how they wont work together. All they do is bash each other. I think it would be great if WB could somehow have local hunters involved in the studies they do (like culling dear). I don't know if they have tried that in the past or not but it seems like a good idea to me. I've personally emailed them and signed up for volunteer work. This way I can get out in the field with them and see how they work.

Sorry for the rant.......

18 + 58/2 = 47

(18 + 58)/2 = 38

Mike, if you come up with an average of 58 deer/sm, that's it. That's the average. You said it yourself "The deer counted (with correction factor applied) in the two transects yields a total count of 580 deer for an average of 58 deer/sq mile" back in your first post here and said that it is "perfectly valid." It ends there. 580 deer on 10 square miles cannot average 38 deer/square mile. The only way that is true is if you counted 380 deer on the 10 square miles.

Where you are wrong is your assumption that the upper limit cannot exceed the mean. It does, always. So in our example, mean = 58 and lower limit = 18. That tells me that the error is plus or minus 40. So the upper limit would be 98. Now, if we take the average of the two limits (98 + 18)/2 = 58. Makes sense as we simply derived 2 numbers by adding and subtracting a constant from the mean. Taking the average of your derived mean and lower limit is just not correct and appears to be intentionally diluting densities as many here have a propensity to do to show there is not a deer problem. If it was an honest mistake, my apologies for being flippant.

A more statistically robust (and valid) method would be to add the densities derived on each of the 10 square miles and divide by 10 as I provided in my example. And we don't need to extrapolate out to the entire 32 square miles because we just determined there are 58 deer/sm in the third of town we sampled. That's it. Unless we want to determine the number of deer in town, then 32 square miles x 58 deer/square mile = 1856 deer in town.

I have been getting hammered from all angles here and must have thicker skin than you. . . Tally up all crap I've been getting and "thanks for playing" seems pretty innocuous.

The landing would be much smoother if your approach didn't suck.

First of all, no apologies needed; I knew it was an honest mistake and had no doubt you would acknowledge it once you reviewed the post. In your defense the many misrepresentations of what I actually wrote that you had to sort through would have confused Archimedes!

With regard to the limited number of sample points; I took the results of an aerial survey that while done correctly in terms of count derivation was then misapplied to represent a population density for the total area of the town in question. Given the known factor that deer will congregate (yard up) in the winter it is more likely that you will survey areas of high deer densities than low ones. The likelihood of lower areas given representative averages from past years also points to the probability being high that to extrapolate this 1/3 sampling over the whole area would likely skew the average on the high side.

This was why I also posted an actual census count; to start people to view all facets of the argument and weigh the data and either a)form their own conclusions or b)determine they need more data points.

I agree with you 100% that more data points is always better and I would never conduct a study with 2 disparate data points; you'd have poor confidence intervals and an unacceptably high SD. Again though this also points to why the agency responsible for the survey was irresponsible to extrapolate that limited sample out for an entire area. Aerial surveys (and there is ample literature to support this) are best suited for tracking population trends in a given area.

As I said we're good and best of luck as you continue your studies.

Odo,

While the calmed-down approach is a step in the right direction the bulk of your posting is again a blatant misrepresentation of what I've actually said. It is so obvious it is painful to see you try and force me to argue against points I never made.

I have no interest in debating with straw men.

With regard to skin thickness; in light of how you have been treated I had taken great pains to ensure my posts to you were always respectful. Whatever you think the degree of your initial response was it certainly wasn't on equal footing with the respect I had accorded you.

I followed that up by still maintaining a respectful tone but initiated the post by asking you to please point me to a post-any post where I had not been respectful to you. That was the essence of extending an olive branch and offering you a graceful way out. Instead you proceeded to take that olive branch and give me a few good backhands with it.

The bottom line is there is nothing wrong with my math. There is ample literature to support the proper and best use of aerial transect surveys and the extrapolation done, even in the best of times (not winter when you can reasonably argue the deer herd will be spread out) would never be as accurate as an actual census. Done in the wintertime it bordered on ridiculous to extrapolate that sample out the way it was done.

When people are accused of being "tin-foil" hat conspiracy theorists it is precisely because of such acts that cannot hide a bias to obtain a desired outcome. That is not how science works.

And I am now out of popcorn.....

I'm just sayin...

I find your information concerning the fly over counts the most interesting to date! If the sampling was done in known areas where deer yarded up for the winter and/or were baited than that data is definitely biased and any correction factor should be downward, not up!

I'm beginning to see a pattern here and that some, not all, but some of the objections from the hunter base are truly founded on fact.

Please reread my statement: "PhD does not necessarily mean they know everything."

I think my original statement makes it clear your question is moot and while you read my statement you apparently did not comprehend its meaning.

We're good and appreciate the response. Last time I checked I have yet to roll out of bed perfect and I don't foresee that ever changing.

The bottom line is as you said we should all care about the hunting opportunities we have and while preserving them is a worthy goal we should also have an eye on methods to improve and grow those opportunities.

Maybe it's a function of living in a state where it seems anytime the government gets involved the citizens get the short end of the stick. I agree with you that at times all of us tend to have days where the fuse is really short-something I try to work on.

Best wishes to a great 4th to all!

74 days......not that I'm counting mind you....

I took my 5 yr old grandson to the back yard deck and asked him "How many squirrels do you see?" He counted the 3 in the yard. Then I asked him "How many squirrels DON'T you see?" He looked at me, looked at the yard, and said "Papa, you can't count squirrels you don't see."

If you want to use my grandson for the next deer survey let me know, he'll work for gummy bears. :)

That's classic!!!

I do like to have a little fun when posting but I'm trying to make a point too. I'm not trying to make fun of Odo or others who are posting about the use of statical surveys and the math involved. I'm a simple person and I tend to break things down to their roots, so I ask myself if I would count deer that I didn't see,....the answer is no.

as logical person, if you find just 6 of the 12 eggs in my backyard and I then ask you, "How many more eggs are in my yard?" would you say 54? That would mean the process you used to find eggs is not very reliable if you miss that much of the population.

I have to go tend a patient now who's suffering from math hang-over.

I have to go tend a patient now who's suffering from math hang-over. priceless !

Well if They aren't yet, you're making a good run at it.

You almost made me drop my tablet. That was great.

Genius!!! Why don't we just go back in time to before lyme disease existed?

Vt just like most states has seen a rise in lyme disease. It has actually been on the local news the last two nights. Not once did they mention that the leading cause is from our deer population. We have a terrible deer pop and more ticks than we have ever had. The two are not related. If you want to decrease the amount of ticks then find a way to decrease the number of ticks. Simply blaming the deer pop is a ridiculous excuse for trying to reach your real goal of decreasing the deer pop. Vt is the best example of why your ideas will not accomplish what you are trying to do.

Vermidiot signing out

I agree that fewer deer doesn't mean fewer ticks or less LD. I hunt the NW corner and the deer population is nearly non-existent when compared to years ago, and yet I still have ticks when coming out of the woods; that didn't change from years ago.

I know this isn't a controlled study, just one man's personal experience. But I am getting tired of hearing that the solution to LD is to kill the deer when education and tick, not deer, control would be a better solution.

There must be something wrong with your survey methodology, are you using the accepted technique of counting the deer visually, adding 2 per mile driven, since we have to assume that you occasionally look away to keep your eyes on the road? Then take this number and multiply it by 2 thereby factoring in the scientifically accepted 'correction factor' and then: You will have a correct deer population estimate as supported by science!

And since there are now too many deer in your area, that quite clearly explains why there are so many ticks, and therefore so many cases of Lyme. What's that you say: there are NOT a lot of cases of Lyme disease reported? Well that's obviously because cases of Lyme, are under reported by 10 or 20 times!

So now that you realize the errors of your ways please restate all your posts here to account for the obvious deer over population problem in the Northwest corner.

:-)

that counting method way too complicated for my simple mind to grasp.

I'm going to only count the deer I see because I can't shoot the deer I don't see (or count them, just ask my 5 yr old grandson).

I know we like to have fun with this, but I've been contacting the DEP, and DEEP going back as far as the 1990's stating that the deer population in the MDC area by Hogback dam dropped off dramatically since I started hunting there in 1978.

If you think that the upper limit cannot exceed the mean, how do you calculate the 95% confidence interval? That's 1.96 standard deviations above and below the sample mean, right? Not just below. Correct?

Again, we are not trying to derive an unknown population mean, merely establishing the average of 580 deer on 10 square miles as you have put forth. Show me a link that verifies your methodology that the average of 580 deer on 10 square miles is 38.

And mean and average are synonyms BTW. We're not talking median or mode here.

Same goes for counting deer. If you count a known population and routinely get half that amount, your precision is on. To adjust accuracy, you double your count. Presto!

http://www.mathsisfun.com/accuracy-precision.html

So, if you fly by and count 20 deer it means you have 40?

Shit, I need to find the rest of my money. I'll be back.

You guys need to get someone with more fingers to get an accurate number.

Oh and I think the other thing I'm missing is the arbitrary number that is being thrown around regarding how many deer per sq mile is the magic number. Who makes this up and how and why is it arrived at?

I'd suggest breathing oxygen next time; nothing wrong with my math...again.

I'd be remiss if I didn't once again try to correct you. Never, ever, ever in a million years could the average of 580 deer on 10 square miles be 38 deer/sm. It's 58.

Correction (no pun intended); you're not trying to correct me, you're trying to misrepresent what I've said-again. I will advise you again, prior to engaging you mouth you engage your brain and re-read what I have written. I have never, ever said the average of 580 deer on 10 square miles is 38 deer/sm.

Once again you are deliberately misrepresenting what I've repeatedly stated and attempting to draw me into arguing a false claim I never made. This is your staw man, you play with it or drop the pretense and move on. This is getting tiresome.

And again, your upper confidence limit can and always will be greater than the mean

And again a deliberate misrepresentation of what I have clearly posted. What I stated was "The upper limit cannot be an amount greater than that which was actually counted, hence it is 58."

Now it cannot be any plainer than that. Worse still, that wasn't the first time I stated it and you have misrepresented that on multiple occasions.

Now let me make this very, very simple-if you want to have an honest debate, have one. If you want to blatantly lie and misrepresent what I (and others) have said you will get caught; you either aren't particlularly bright (as it is ridiculously easy to go back up in the posts and clearly see what is written and that you are not accurately depicting it) or you are one of the most disingenous posters in the history of the Bowsite. You know you're misrepresenting but it is the argument, not the truth that is paramount to you.

Here is one fact of life that seems to consistently elude you; there will be times in your life when you are wrong. That is an unavoidable fact of being human. Embrace it, get used to it and move on. You are and continue to be wrong and your sophomoric attempts to lie and misrepresent your way out of that fact are about as tiresome as the false pretenses you continue to post under.

Grow up or get lost.

Here's the thing - I started off KNOWING that I hid 12 eggs, so there was no need to adjust the final count. The survey process discussed on this site assumes that ALL deer were not seen, therefore they adjusted.

PS - I'm not a doctor, but I do free breast exams.

I didn't include what I didn't see. I could assume I saw all of them, or 90%, or 80%, etc, etc.

But Mike, you didn't count 58 deer, you counted 500 something and then added a correction to get 580. So of course your upper limit can exceed the mean of 58 given your logic. I'm not misrepresenting what you are saying, I'm trying to understand it because it makes no sense. I would agree that your upper limit cannot exceed what you counted, which in this case was 580 deer on 10 square miles, whose average is 58. And given your example, if we have a mean of 58 and lower limit of 18, that tells me your limit is +\- 40, which result in an upper limit of 98. This satisfies your above referenced statement "The upper limit cannot be an amount greater than that which was actually counted" because 98 is less than 580.

Actually you are continuing to be obtuse and it is no longer possible to extend the benefit of the doubt that you truly do not understand what is written.

You are perfectly capable of understanding that the issue is the measurement being reported; deer/sm. Do you seriously expect me to believe you do not understand what A SQUARE MILE is? As in 1? uno?

Your upper limit is 58 deer PER SQUARE MILE.

This satisfies your above referenced statement "The upper limit cannot be an amount greater than that which was actually counted" because 98 is less than 580.

No one should have to point out that you are comparing a value for one square mile to one for 10 square miles and arguing they prove your point. What this statement proves is as I said; you have no interest in the truth, merely in advancing your argument.

Now a couple of points for you to ponder; if all you can do is to continue to post the same banalities then save yourself the trouble and don't waste the bandwidth. I will not engage in this nonsense with you any longer.

Point #2-as you have arrived and continue to post under dubious conditions it would be prudent to discontinue calling attention to yourself. I shudder to think of how empty your existence would become if you try to post and find you no longer have that privelege.

Steve, that’s brilliant!!! That multiplier is a flawed theory specially if deer are counted in winter when deer are yarded.

I disagree in the number of deer being reported and disagree on the use of WB Poachers to bring numers down. Specially since they are lowwer than reported.

I agree that more research is needed but needs to be unbias and needs to target ticks not deer.

What really bothers me with this arguement is after 45 years of hunting I can take you to large tracts of land, with snow on the ground, and you'll be lucky to see 2 or 3 tracks, and maybe spot a deer after several hours of hiking.

Then I cound take you to another spot, within the same general area, and show you 4-5 deer and more tracks than you can count. The latter is where I hunt.

If I count the deer in the latter location and say that's the number of deer in ALL locations I would be called a fool.

V, he could simply multiply by 2 and have a 12 pack!

I suppose if he worked for the federal government he could probably turn that into an entire case, HEY, that would be a Federal Case wouldn't it? OK, that was a terrible pun, I admit it.

example - You have 20 deer in a 10 acre wooded enclosure (You put/stocked the deer there). Now you play a little game of hide and seek, and try to count those same 20 deer....but those little brown fuzzy goats are good hiders and tough to find....and you only are able to find 12 of them. Well, you do this over and over again with different methods and still only find 12-13 of them at any given time....But gee-golly (scratching your head) you know you put 20 in here somewhere. Now you take this out to the real world and apply the same methods....because these little suckers are really hard to find.

I think I get it now. Someone did an experiment BEFORE the actual survey by putting 20 deer in a confined space,....is that what you're saying? And used that experiment to obtain the percentage seen and counted?

I can understand the logic of that. I still don't agree with using that count for the entire town, because there will be areas with a lot less deer and some may have more. Not sure if that balances out, it would depend on the make up of the land in the town I suppose.

He said that it is used due to the fact that large areas can be surveyed at reasonable cost. He also said that the numbers are much more useful for showing a trend rather than to be used as an absolute count.

I asked him about the "correction factor" and he said that obviously you strive to count under ideal conditions, You would never choose a number under 1, that would suggest that you are counting deer more than once. A factor of 1 would suggest that you were perfect, which is not likely given the fact that deer are good at remaining undetected.

He also said that in effect no biologist admits to "needing" a number larger than 2, because if you can't spot at least half of the deer, then there are other problems, perhaps you chose an area with too many hemlocks, or maybe you are flying too high, or too fast, or there is no snow cover.

I asked him how that number (somewhere between 1 and 2) was picked, and he said it's somewhat of an 'Educated Guess based on conditions and experience.

Now we come to the State of CT. Here is what my own ears have heard: -From Howard K: 'our research has shown that you miss half the deer" so he uses a correction factor of 2 (except that time in Greenwich, which I guess I'm probably supposed to bring up).

Always using 2 seems to suggest that conditions are always the same (and as bad as they can be, and still use the data).

-From a source close to the action: "conditions were ideal, he will probably use a factor of XX (hint, it started with a 1). Guess what? Howard, who is in charge, decided to use 2 AGAIN. Hmm, he wasn't even in the aircraft that time, what gives?

Why would he do that if conditions this particular time were much better than conditions the previous time?

Camera counts and aerial counts using heat detection were suggested as being much more accurate and reliable.

My real problem with all this is that we have had the "goal" of 10 per sq mile shoved down our throat. The rest of this is just a way to try to arrive at that ridiculous number. All of the arguing over math, counts, correction factors and techniques is only because one man has such a fear of Ticks/ Lyme Disease/ Doxycycline, that he is willing to lie, cheat and act like a complete fool. Can you admit why you are doing all this? You admitted it to the 4 Deer Wardens one night at the Redding Roadhouse.

There it is, care to respond Dave Streit? But this time have the stones to sign your real name to the post, or aren't you a big enough man to do that?

I too believe there are far fewer deer than there used to be out there.

I'm not sure how you can disagree with that, as you just described exactly to me the scenario. Just like with the Easter egg example. Same deal. If you stock 20 deer and count them 3 times from the air and get 12, 14, and 13, you detection average will be 13 or 65%. Then you would assume you would detect that many on your survey that day. Now because deer are not dumb and don't stand out in the open waiting to be shot or counted, detection will never be 100%. Spray paint them blaze orange before you stock them, and that might be a different story. . .

I also agree with you that there are far fewer deer out there than there used to be in the early/mid 2000s.

BBB. Yes. First count the population of known abundance to determine your detection, then fly your actual survey. And as I said to Mike, if it were me, I would just report the density on the area flown and let people do with that what they please. But if you are looking for townwide average densities, ultimately it comes down to sampling. In lieu of counting, or attempting to count, every deer in a town, a certain percentage of town can be flown to get an idea of deer density on those areas. We can then take those samples and extrapolate townwide density. Will it be an exact count? No, but will give us an idea of what density is townwide. If we sample random areas within town, we then have to assume those random areas are representative of the entire town. As LF said, it's just a matter of statistics and sampling.

I don't agree with the correction factor either, but at least now I understand the logic used to obtain it (had to get past all of the name calling and personal attacks first).

There are too many variables between a controlled study and doing the same count in the open woods where you don't know how many deer are in the "pen" so to speak.

I hunt state land, and I try to increase the deer I see each year by not taking does or small bucks. Yeah, I haven't shot a monster in 16 years now, but so what! I have seen some bruisers, but no shots.

For me, that's ok. I could have taken several deer this past season but I didn't. Did someone else shoot one or two, sure did (I think Nev took one). But at least in my mind I'm doing what I believe is the ethical thing as a hunter and a steward of this great resource.

I hunt Greenwich, Darien, Wilton and Easton.

And how about answering Aces question on why you are so afraid of ticks I think I know too .STEVE

Just like if you hide a dozen eggs and your kid routinely finds 6 of them. Then if he or she goes to a huge field at a school Easter egg hunt, is the only one there and finds 50, you could assume that the total unknown population of eggs hidden was 100.

If you used their technique in one part of the state and got 80 deer/sm and used in in NW CT and got 10, you could compare the two because you used the same technique. Are there exactly 8 times fewer deer in NW CT, probably not, but you can deduce that they are orders of magnitude different and would probably adjust your management strategies accordingly.

Well Odontknowmuch, I never said I counted 58 deer on any square mile; I have specified on at least a dozen occasions where the numbers I posted were derived from which makes this at least the 11th time you've tried to misrepresent what I've cleary stated.

This makes you one of 2 things; a fool or a liar. (although I will allow for the potential for you to be both.)

I'm sorry Mike that you cannot admit you are wrong.

Oh, I have no difficulty at all in admitting when I'm wrong. Neither do I have any shyness for defending my theses when they are demonstably true.

What you should be sorry for odonthaveanyscruples is your lack of character and ethics. Instead of continued obfuscatory gymnastics why not just man up and admit you are clearly, irrefutably wrong.

Here is how it goes. You count, with correction, 580 deer on 10 square miles. That equals 58 deer/square mile. If I were you, I would report that as is, that you surveyed 10 square miles and determined there were 58 deer/square mile.

Wow-I'm sure this was an accident but up to this point that is the first honest posting you've made about what I've actually said. You didn't try to claim I stated 58 was the mean (though you have done this ad infinatum as shown in this gem of yours " So if your sample mean is 58 and your lower estimate is 18, then your upper estimate must be 98, no??"

And even when Tobywon corrected you,"FYI, Mikes sample mean is 38 not 58." you continue to post your misrepresentation as if it was I who had put that forth as fact. That's lying and you can feel free to stop anytime now.

Where you will get hammered by guys like yourself on sites like this is when you try to extrapolate that to the entire town.

Wow-the blind squirrel finds another acorn! You do realize that this is exactly what the CT DEEP has been doing when they report deer densities, don't you? They take a sample survey and extrapolate it as if it is representative of an entire town.

This is precisely why I have called this reporting into question; it is taking a methodology best utilized in analyzing population trends and trying to bastardize it into a census method.

The Sahara could become the Napa valley with that kind of fertilizer application.

If you felt the need to do so, if you determined there are 58 deer/square mile in your sample area, you would simply extrapolate that same average to the entire town, in this case 58 deer/square mile x 32 square miles = 1856 deer in town. Simple as that.

Actually it is only simple if one's intention is to misrepresent an actual population for a number of reasons that should be obvious to all but the unconscious (or unethical).

A) You have surveyed during a time of year known to predispose deer to congregate (yarding up); while not statistically impossible it is highly improbable that you will see an equal population dispersal in the uncounted 22 square miles. While statistically unlikely that you will encounter zero deer in the unsurveyed 22 square miles it is statistically probable that the number will be significantly lower due to the aforementioned concentrative phenomenon.

B) For this reason you cannot assume a higher density per square mile than that which was verified, in this case 58 dpsm. The lowest possible population density would be the actual number counted over the total square miles so opposed to the mytology you cling to you'd take your 580 actually counted deer over the 32 square miles of total area and have a lowest possible density of 18 dpsm. This would give you a mean of 38 dpsm (what I actually stated as opposed to the self-serving fairly tale you continue to shamelessly spin).

So, Odontknowsquat you are correct in that the correct answer is simple. Too bad you have a vested interest in promoting the wrong answer. Too bad you have no moral compass to preclude you from using any means necessary to try and maintain the illusion.

I don't know what to feel more for you; pity, or contempt.

No one here is buying your act. Here's one last nugget for the guy who started a thread titled "Why would anyone believe Glen Eckstrom?"

Why would anyone believe someone like yourself shown to be a habitual liar?

Why would anyone believe someone like yourself shown to be incapable of admitting a mistake?

As to the aforementioned Glen Eckstrom; for starters I'me much more inclined to believe someone who has the integrity to post their viewpoints, thoughts and feelings under their god-given name as opposed to someone who resorts to inventing a cast of anonymous characters to hit-and-run post behind. Maybe it's just my thing but that kind of chicken-shit nonsense just doesn't inspire a desire to pay attention to those types of posters in me.

I'd venture to say that what Mr. Eckstrom squeezes off as part of his morning constitutional is of more worth than anything you will ever have to say.

Now would be a very good time to go and crawl back under the rock you came from....

Your sample mean is 58. Pretending that is your upper limit too is so incorrect and then averaging that with your lower estimate to come up with 38 as the sample mean is so laughable. It makes no sense, but returns the low population estimate you are looking for. Cheers bro. This is precisely why hunters are not taken seriously. They falter left and right and find the math and logic that suits their agenda, whether plausible or not. Sorry bro.

....Says the person posting with a fictitious name....

By whom exactly? Pompous asses? Admit when you are beat and slink away, or keep it up, some here may not be done laughing.

There is so much to find wrong with your posts that we have to delegate jobs to different people, so we have time for the rest of our lives.

Now that the fawns have dropped, antlers are growing for real, and the days are getting shorter, most of the guys here will probably start to pay more attention to the upcoming season than to what a couple of idiots type here. Then we will go back to talking about hunting, and he will go back to being irrelevant and playing with himself.

Er, actually I'm not odonothaveaclue. I'm highlighting how the CT DEEP has systematically overestimated deer densities per town by taking samples from a fraction of the whole and extrapolating them as a census of the whole.

And since you've opened the can of worms I'll treat to you to the whole can of whup ass this time chicken-shit.

You might recognize this first citation-it's you. (well you're real name not the fake name you post under like the coward you are).

http://www.cthuntingnshooting.com/vBforum/showthread.php?17858-Helicopter-Surveys-Deer-and-Lyme-Disease-in-Connecticut

Everyone else pay very strict attention to the methodology old Scott no-balls describes. These are not my numbers, they're HIS numbers.

Now let's have some fun:

http://www.newtown-ct.gov/public_documents/NewtownCT_BComm/TBDACFR/Attach%203%20Aerial%20Survey.pdf

and why stop there, let's have some more at nutless's expense:

http://www.deeralliance.com/node/5

Now everyone take a really good look at the tables for the transects and bear in mind; this is using the peer-reviewed methodology that produces those remarkable numbers that Scott sackless defends as if they came from the burning bush:

You may notice that all the numbers of deer counted are doubled. DOUBLED. That would be all well and good except the articles describe (as cited here:

http://www.townofreddingct.org/Public_Documents/ReddingCT_Health/Redding%20Aerial%20Deer%20Survey%20Results

2 observers should detect 80% of the actual deer present:

http://www.ct.gov/caes/lib/caes/documents/publications/ticks/results_and_decription_of_the_redding_aerial_survey_2014.pdf

So instead of doubling the counts they should be divided by 0.8 to obtain the best estimate of the actual count. For example if 2 observers count 80 deer (we know 80 is 80% of 100; I'm keeping the example simple for the easily confused) so if you take 80/0.8 you get-you guessed it, 100 deer.

So if you look at the FFCDMA citation and look at transect 1 you'll see an actual count of 31.8 deer and a corrected count of 63.6 deer. However, if you properly applied the method (cited by Odope) of 2 observers the correction factor should not be 2 but 0.8 and the actual count would be 31.8/0.8 or 39.75 deer/sm.

That's just a little bit off from 63.6, wouldn't you say?

Any biologist or anyone else in the know has called you out.

Actually the only one who has done the 3 monkey routine is you.

But the boys on this site are patting you on the back for sounding smart and giving them the answer they want, though so totally mathematically incorrect.

Actually the men on this site (and no, I don't consider you to be one) are astute enough to know when the emperor has no clothes and you are stark, buck naked.

Anyone who needs to post so much without any content clearly has an agenda.

Anyone so obstinant as to continue to deny the obvious clearly has an agenda. Not that we had any doubt about yours mind you.

I'm sorry for trying to correct you; I thought you were making honest mistakes. . .

You are correct about one thing; you are sorry. Please refrain from ever using the word "honest" in anything you ever post. Your continued false posting makes a mockery of that word.

Your sample mean is 58. Pretending that is your upper limit too is so incorrect and then averaging that with your lower estimate to come up with 38 as the sample mean is so laughable.

No it remains 38 regardless of how many times you stamp your little foot and throw the internet equivalent of a hissy fit. Grow up or shut up. When the DEEP extrapolated the sample out to cover all the land area then your count is divided by the whole area and not just the sample area. You don't get to have it both ways. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

It makes no sense, but returns the low population estimate you are looking for..

It makes sense to 99.9999% of the readers here. It makes sense to you too but since it puts a rather large hole in your scheme you are doing your best to try and prove that denial isn't just a river in Africa.

This is precisely why hunters are not taken seriously. They falter left and right and find the math and logic that suits their agenda, whether plausible or not.

No, hunters are taken seriously. Many here have done more in a day for hunting and for their fellow man than you will ever do in your lifetime.

People are never taken seriously when they are so cowardly they have to resort to posting under assumed, fake names. People's opinions are not taken seriously when they lack the conviction to lay it on the line and stand 100% behind them, come hell or high water.

You are barking up the wrong tree with me; even to someone as dense as you that should have been apparent long ago but you are so married to the lie you can't separate fact from fiction any longer.

That is your cross to bear.

You have been called out-you are a coward, a liar and a fraud. No one here would ever mistake you for a person of character, a sportsman and certainly not a stand-up man who could be counted on to have anyone's back.

Your self-absorbtion is mirrored by your self-interest. Don't post about caring about the bowhunters on this site; your actions and words make a mockery of those false claims too.

Now go play in the kiddie pool until you can bring a lot more to the table than what you've shown so far.

You two really don't know when you're beat do you?

Funny thing about an online forum I guess, you can be getting your ass handed to you again, and again, and you either don't notice, or are too stupid/stubborn to admit it.

Reminds me of a scene from a movie. I can picture Scott & Dave: "All right, we'll call it a draw."

Just a flesh wound!

Despite your incorrect math, you also need a lesson in sampling. To attempt to count every deer in the state or even a town is impractical, unreliable, and not affordable. In lieu of that, if we take a random sample of a town, count 58 deer/square mile, we can then extrapolate that out to the entire town of 32 miles as we assume that those random areas are representative of the entire town. We do not reduce the density to 38 deer/square mile using fuzzy and incorrect math, unless of course you have an agenda.

As I said before, if it were me, I would just report density on the area flown. Show me where anyone has conclusively stated what deer density was townwide.

And relax with your tone and anger. It just stands to weaken your already incorrect and weak argument.

anyone has any new gadgets for the coming season?

Go away.

I will be getting one in the future. Those things are amazing. Everyone should have one.

Oh well, carry on. Beyond that, I'm not sure. Mippy, rutt roe?? What do I do if I don't have a litter box??