Bowsite.com

sorry, but I don't agree that more deer means more lyme disease.

It may mean there are more ticks and if people (not deer, but people) don't check themselves for ticks then there is higher opportunity for lyme disease.

I've hunted when I could see 20 deer a day on state land and I never got lyme disease, and today there are far less deer and I still don't have lyme disease, so the critical factor in my eyes for lyme disease is checking yourself for ticks, not how many deer there are.

Where I work we do something called "Root Cause Analysis" and the root cause of getting lyme disease is getting bit by a tick that carriers the disease. The root cause is not that a deer allowed the tick to feed on it's blood. Therefore, the corrective action is to keep from getting bit, which means using preventative measures like bug spray and checking yourself for ticks.

If we kill all the deer can you assure us that the ticks won't find another host, like our dogs, cats, or coyotes and continue to spread the disease?

I don't think many people disagree that more deer more ticks.

Where we disagree is that some of us like a sustainable deer herd, some want it wiped out. The piece of report attached says 5.1 dpsm.

How would hunting be with 5.1 dpsm?

The deer even though they carry the ticks, are not to be blamed for Lyme.

The answer is education not eradication. How come hunters have less cases of Lyme than non-hunters? Yeah, we still get it but we do a better job in checking ourselves and using protection.

NOW, this is a hunting site. You want to keep discussing this same crap in 20 different threads? Go here : http://www.cdc.gov/ and do it.

Question, what would've odoriferous do if he was in charge when the AIDS epidemic started?

Attack the virus or kill the host?

OUT!

Much like Odo ( Scott Williams ) and his magic with deer numbers; we are now getting a science lesson on Lyme disease on how to multiply tick eggs.

Dave is this known as the the " Lyme - 6X " correction factor for tick eggs ? I think we need to have - Mike in CT take a look at this for correction !

"Experts" count the deer, but they say that they don't see every one so they multiply the number they do see by 2.

Other "Experts" require the reporting of cases of Lyme disease, but those numbers are low, they assume that the disease is under reported, so they say things like, cases of Lyme Disease are under reported by a factor of 10, and of course that results in a much larger and scarier number.

Ticks lay "up to 3,000 eggs". But if it is said that that number is 2,000 to 18,000, that sounds more impressive.

I'm sure that someone is going to respond that these are not exact sciences, or absolute numbers, they vary within a range. And maybe a guy with a PhD will chime in and throw around a few statistical/ mathematical terms, designed to sound impressive and confuse some and convince others.

As a hunter and fisherman when we exaggerate or enhance a story, or the size or a kill or a catch, we're called LIARS. I saw a buck that had to be 140" but couldn't get a shot, I caught a 10 pound trout, but he broke off at the boat.

Have you guys ever noticed that for some people saying: "I don't know" seems practically impossible. Often for these same people, saying "I was wrong" is totally impossible.

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.

Good one Cory. Nice selfie.

Ha Cory! Seriously. There can only be two guys in the state that are educated on deer and ticks and disease. My word.

If a man makes a statement in the woods, and there's no woman around to hear it, is he still wrong?

V - where are you on this one?

Those tubes kind of work, but only in small localized locations, not area-wide like deer reduction might. With the deer, scientists are just trying to determine if deer reduction alone can reduce ticks in an inland suburban setting. It might not work and may prove to have no impact. Then hunters can say see, told you so and have their high deer densities like they got so spoiled with in the early-mid 2000s.

Just so we can be clear Dr Williams: -are you now saying for the record that you: don't know if 10 Deer psm will work to reduce Lyme Disease?

like I said before,... what science declared as fact last year is sciencefiction this year.

Common sense - use it. If a tick bites you and has the virus for lyme disease you may get it. Don't let ticks bite you, ....case closed.

Now, I want more deer. Who's with me?

Are you say killing young ticks at the source in wide distribution is not as effective as killing one of the large mammal adult tick hosts? Are you saying it is better to eliminate a host (minimal effect on ticks) than to eliminate juvenile ticks (major effect on tick populations)?

BH. Another part of the study is to determine the best combination of factors for reducing ticks that targets all life stages. Deer reduction is a component yes to target the adult host. One of the square miles is just that and another is deer reduction, a fungal spray that kills all life stages of the tick, and a rodent bait box in which mice and chipmunks get attracted to a bait, go in the box, and get "frontlined" thus making them little killing machines for the juvenile stages of the tick. A third square mile is getting the spray and the rodent box and a 4th square mile is serving as a control in which homes are receiving no intervention. Additionally, as a separate study, an oral vaccine to kill Borrelia in mice is also being investigated. Clearly this is beyond just killing deer, but I'm sure you don't see it that way.

I shave mine off when The Rangers are out of the play offs. I had it almost a month longer this year.

Apparently you favor spending more money researching when a tried and true (oh.. and commercially viable) method has already been found.

OK, so now we have established several things:

Odo is Scott Williams, other than not being able to man up, and to follow Bowsite rules, what's the big deal? He wasn't fooling very many people anyway.

Next, he admits that he doesn't know if reducing deer densities will have a significant effect of Lyme Disease cases.

"Ace, it is not known what impact deer reduction will have on tick abundances in an inland setting. It works on islands and locales of an insular nature. That is the point of the study, to see what happens. I've been saying this all along."

But wait, who started this thread? And what was claimed? Draw your own conclusions on this one.

AND, they deliberately choose an area of high winter deer densities to count and shoot in.

Rooster's last post (on the other thread) is spot on. If you come to a town that we have intimate knowledge of, and you start telling us things as facts that we know to be false, why in the world would you be surprised that we call you on it?

Your expertise may or may not be suspect, that isn't for me to determine, but your knowledge of Redding is clearly less than that of many of the people who are posting on this topic. If you can't admit that, then the rest doesn't really matter now does it?

I'll give you a bit more unsolicited advice: Try to at least learn to fake a bit of Humility.

Why the paper is of importance is because while it is true yes that deer don't play a role in the Lyme disease cycle, they are vital to the life cycle if the tick. With more ticks comes more disease. So the paper shows that if you reduce deer, you reduce ticks, and reduce tick borne disease.

According to your post, we don't know much about Redding but know enough to know where the high density deer areas are? Sure.

I disagree again with the assumption that more ticks = more lyme disease. I've stated before that I have had several ticks on my clothing coming out of the woods over the 45 years I've hunted and I've never been bit, let alone have lyme disease. I would agree that with more ticks comes a greater opportunity for LD, but that means you need to be more diligent when checking yourself.

There was a radio personality on WTIC AM named Colin McEnroe and he ended every show with "Check yourself for ticks" and he was against hunting!! With knowledge comes strength, and ticks aren't that strong :)

why did you post a picture of General Ulysses S.Grant? Oh, it's because it's Independence Day, nice touch!! What stiking looking man he was, and it looks like he hunted too. :)

Nice beard.

If you know Redding so well, why did someone involved with the study call me and ask for advice on which neighborhoods to choose for the Deer Reduction portions of the "study"?

The White Birch, Topstone Swamp area has been a known wintering site for many years.

And despite all your best efforts and permission from the (then) DEP, to kill 100 deer, you only managed 51 total on 2 sites. Woops, guess maybe there weren't as many as you thought.

Why not explain to the folks here that don't know it, exactly HOW you did the first year count for this study. You know, the way you killed every deer you could, and THEN counted them. Next you added the number of deer killed to the number you counted (with a correction factor figured in OF COURSE) and then came up with a Population Denisty number.

Go ahead Oso/Scott/Steve, explain that methodology and share the data. And be sure to show your work, so we can check your math.

Given awareness both of individuals and the medical field to Lyme and related tick borne diseases, the number of confirmed cases should be rising gradually unless an epic collapse in the deer tick population happened. People know to ask about it, and doc's know to ask about it and have tools to test for it. That was not the case 10-20-30 years ago to the same degree it is now, and that certainly impacts the number of confirmed cases that would be recorded in a given area over time.

I need more than one study to show me that lower deer #'s equal lower Lyme disease rates. May be true... but given areas with low deer numbers also have rapidly ballooning lyme cases... My gut says I'd need to see a LOT of research with very strong stat's (not percentages, really strong P values) to show me that.

I need to see studies from areas with HIGH lyme infection rates but known LOW deer densities.

I also need studies from areas with stable deer numbers...

And I'd love to see something showing me NOT the confirmed infection rate, but rather how often doc's tested for it, or assessed a patient for it over the past 10-15 years. Again, is a rise in cases really there, or is knowledge of how to ask for care and provide care changing and thus, changing the stats.

In any field, using one study for or against your belief's is just not a good idea. Or maybe said better, using one study as proof of anything is not a great idea - eventually your going to be wrong unless the study was said something like "Humans need oxygen to live."

It's also important to remember that studies don't "prove" things, they just confirm that something may have a relationship, or may not and provide some level of strength to that relationship via the statistical tools used in formulating the results.

No fake names. Stop hiding. Come have a cup of coffee with me. I'd like to share my time with you to understand you better.

I should hope that there are not many jumping on your bandwagon. I remember a story about a guy named David Koresh....how did that turn out again?

Bowsite used to be a fun place....now it's just a funny place.

That makes a big difference to free roaming deer.

Cheers!

The reason given (see quote below) is the nymphs are active during the summer months and are as small as a period in news print making them very difficult to notice on your body.

"People primarily acquire Borrelia burgdorferi (the causative agent of Lyme disease) from infected nymphs because of their small size. "

So why all of the attention on the one stage of the tick life cycle that has the least impact on the LD cases? To me it all goes back to education, not killing the deer.

Airrow, you sound like PETA when you say that scientific studies that don't support your conclusions are "junk science."

Looks to me like someones words were twisted a bit.

oh boy, now you agree with global warming??

BTW - it's now called climate change because the weather over the past few years has been unusually cold.

I'm also old enough to remember when the "scientists" were predicting the 2nd ice age within the next 50 years. That never happened either.

Now we are being asked to believe that Deer Ticks cause terrorism? Oh wait, ... if we don't want to kill all the deer then we are in bed with PETA! No, that's not right either, ... agree with LymeBeFree or you're a communist!

Eschew Obfuscation!

Here is the question then that will prove you wrong. You failed to even comment on it when i asked you in another thread. With so little deer in vt compared to 20 years ago why is limes disease on the rise in our state? Explain how less deer equals less ticks. I went in and checked my trail cams last weekend and had 10 ticks on me. I have never had that many and i have hunted this area all my life.

I will wait for your response.

vermidiot

As far as ticks on moose, those are winter ticks that live out their entire life cycle on one moose and can overwhelm them, sometimes even killing them. They are beginning to be a problem too more so now likely because they are better able to survive through the winters.

Lower deer pop means lower tick pop. Except in Vt. Where the only reason we having an increase in ticks is because of the warmer winters. But in other parts of the country you have more ticks because of the deer herd? Even though everyone is experiencing warmer climates.

Wow going to have to see something that supports all that. Something is starting to stink real bad.

Bbb. Yes, ticks have a 2 year life cycle. Juvenile stages are more susceptible to weather related phenomena than the hardier adults.

Let me know if you guys solve the equation, cause lots of people way smarter than us are working on it and have been at it for some time and are looking for the answer.

http://www.lymeneteurope.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3916#p29337

Anyone paying attention clearly has you guys aligned with PETA. Good job guys. Aligning with your sworn enemy. You've come full circle.

We hunt. We are a tool for the DEEP to control and manage deer numbers in the state of CT. Go babble to them. Leave us alone.

I've invited you to a 3D shoot and a cup of coffee to try to understand your premise with this topic. You have refused both times. I don't hide. I'm right here.

You speak of 8-10 DPSM as the optimum number. Yet Dr. Kilpatrick just stated in the press about Tyler Mill in Wallingford that around 20 is a healthy number....Achievable through hunting. Please go away quietly or man up and go chase after your soccer moms about the importance of tick education.

Let us take care of bowhunting and our passion.

For instance, the don't blame the deer argument works for Friends of Animals because they don't want the deer dead. That makes sense. The same don't blame the deer campaign doesn't make sense coming from hunters, because it is clear that the hunters want to be the ones killing the deer. That argument is selfish and transparent as those lobbying both for and against hunting at the Capitol can see right through it. And frankly it does more harm to hunters' reputations. Hunters need to come up with a strong collective message that appeals to the public of CT, not just to other hunters.

I taught a class yesterday that certified 52 new Bowhunters. Next week I'm leading a Firearms class, might have as many as 70 students.

Lots of state land, and many private property owners who welcome hunters. Haven't you heard, the drop in the numbers of hunters has been reversed.

Yeah, We're the problem.

It can't be the guys who are trying to convince the public that unless they support dropping the deer numbers to an unnaturally low level Lyme Disease will become an epidemic!

Can't be the guys proposing using suppressed rifles at night to shoot deer!

Can't be the guys who make a living shooting deer at night!

Yeah WE'RE the problem! What an ass you are. This is a site FOR Bowhunters and you have convinced exactly nobody. Only the other Fake Name guy agrees with you.

I will join the others here and invite you to just go away.

Or if you like the abuse, stick around.

Why are you here?

You guys need to learn to be proactive and make a positive name for yourselves. Not react to situations you disagree with after you have had decades to try to solve the issues.

There are to many examples of lyme's disease cases increasing while accompanied by consistently low deer densities or recently reduced deer densities.

It's irresponsible as a scientist to view only one aspect of research. What's the big picture, not just what studies on one side of a question point to.

Do you think that the hunters here believe that your goals are the same as their goals?

Do you think the hunters here are going to take advice from people who are such cowards that they register on a hunting site under false names?

Do you actually think that the way you have conducted yourself on this site has given you any credibility with the people who have been here for years?

If you do, then you are delusional.

You are allowed to stay here, and people keep engaging with you purely for the entertainment value.

Carry on.

That Paper Scott?

What I'm saying, is that there are many cases of areas with low deer density that have increasing LD cases.

Why no review of why that is happening?

Why not posting those studies?

Have they happened? Or has study only happened on one area of this issue at this point?

Point blank, I dont know. Maybe the only factor in Lyme disease is deer density. That does not make sense though given, again cases of LD in low deer density or reduced deer density areas are ALSO rising.

Taken further, sure, initial study results show that LD in a deer reduced area is lower.

What about 2 years later, 5 years, 10? Do those results hold?

It feels, like the "studies" in this area need some additional work, or more need to be brought out for all to fully understand the issue, to admit what we as a population DO NOT know about the issue, and to formulate a sensible approach to move forward with those two issues in mind.

Where specifically are you talking about where lower deer densities are resulting in increased Lyme disease cases? Airrow's "research"? Was that peer-reviewed and done over an equivalent time period? Or did he take the numbers that worked for him and look at one year to the next? That's not science. That's conspiracy theorist mentality; all data that don't agree with a pre-conceived conclusion were derived from "junk science" and partial and/or fictitious data that support one's conclusion are used as gospel. It's classic.

http://www.wcax.com/story/25988874/controversy-over-lyme-disease-diagnosis-and-treatment

Does this article prove that LD is up in VT because deer are down? No. Perhaps doctors are keen to it now and finally diagnosing it. I see no reference to deer in the article. All the areas with increased cases are southern, more populated, with less severe winters and likely higher deer populations. I agree that cases are up in VT, but there are lots of variables to be considered. Implicating deer with little data on a statewide scale is going to be hard to prove conclusively. That's why to date relationships have been on smaller, more manageable scales, where fewer variables exist to cloud results, like Mumford Cove for instance.

One slight problem with that analysis; well actually one large one-it's wrong.

"At least that’s what a study at the University of California-Santa Cruz reminds us. The research — led by then-doctoral student Taal Levi, now an ecologist at the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies in New York"

If you'd bothered to actually read the citation you'd have caught that the research was a doctoral project undertaken by a doctoral student at the University of Santa Cruz (that's in CA in case you're equally challenged geographically as you are mathematically and statistically.)

I also love the glaring hypocrisy of someone who doles out tongue-lashings at others questioning the veracity of the work of PhD's (with whom he agrees) then dismisses the degree when the point is contrary.

How predictable. You do realize a doctoral thesis has to be defended don't you?

Here's another link for the people like Will with a genuine interest in seeking answers:

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/121-a120/

Odontreadwithcomprehension, you can skip this and just go right to your trademark smarmy comebacks. Let the adults talk this one over for awhile.

*nih-for those who place stock on titles this is the National Institute of Health.

Maybe odontbeatmewiththefactsanymore can find a kind word or two to say about them.....

"Dr. Levi hypothesized that because these small animals are prey, their abundance – and the spread of the Lyme disease bacteria within them – depends on the abundance of their predators. In the study, he and his colleagues did a computer analysis of known cases of Lyme disease and population data for red foxes — a key predator of rodents — in four states with a high prevalence of the disease: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Virginia."

From here: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/18/predators-prey-and-lyme-disease/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

We could substitute red fox for snakes, owls, hawks, grey foxes, ermine, or any other predator of mice and say, model, and publish that with an increase in mouse predators, will result in a decrease in mice, and likely a decrease in Lyme. Duh. I challenge you and he to prove that in a non-computerized setting as Dr. Kilpatrick has done with the paper that started this thread.

Lyme reports for Groton, CT in 1995 were ( 25 ) and in 2008 were ( 17 ); over that same time frame they averaged ( 34.21 ) reported cases over the 14 years. Lyme reports fluctuate on a yearly basis; culling deer won`t lower Lyme on a permanent basis.

The Mumford Cove, CT study is what Dr. Kilpatrick does best; manipulate numbers to a pre determined outcome.

And then we have Dave Streit ( Lymefree ) from Redding, CT; with a deer population down 60% + in the last 4 years and the Lyme rate that is up 61.5% +.

We would not want to forget our all time favorite Scott Williams ( Odo ) who knows how to take less than 10 dpsm and turn them into 45 dpsm in less than one year. This would also make us 4.5 times more likely to contract Lyme disease; so he says with his artificially inflated magic deer numbers.

Yeah, what's the BOZO game? I never heard of it because I was outside fishing or hunting as a kid.

Anyone else notice that his posts are making even less sense than usual. Decompensating?

Any suggestions to 2 yr olds how to win at that?

We'll, at least we know his age now. I guess he might stop playing with his Barbies now that he got bozo.

Whats the excuse for the rest of the time?

It would seem that Dr. Scott Williams has made another mathematical mistake; referring to the 1995-2008 study period. Dr. Williams believes it to be 13 years.....In reality it is 14 years, you have to count the year you start and the year you stop.

Maybe it would help Scott Williams if we posted it this way: ( 1995,1996,1997,1998,1999,2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2008 ) now he can put his finger on each number one at a time and count-he should then arrive at 14 years total time of counting.

http://www.animal-advocates.org/info/file?file=s81m5464.pdf

"White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus Zimmerman), serve as the primary host for the adult blacklegged tick (Ixodes scapularis Say), the vector for Lyme disease, human babesiosis, and human granulocytic anaplasmosis. Our objective was to evaluate the degree of association between deer density, tick abundance, and human cases of Lyme disease in one Connecticut community over a 13-yr period. We surveyed 90?98% of all permanent residents in the community six times from 1995 to 2008 to document resident's exposure to tick-related disease and frequency and abundance of deer observations."

Perhaps we should issue a correction to the journal.

This is the problem when the public find mistakes in your theoretical Lyme study. The publics' findings are dismissed as " non peer reviewed ". So all these professionals could not even figure out whether the study was a 13 or 14 year study; and you want us to swallow this Lyme study with a pre determined outcome hook line & sinker ? The difference of 13 to 14 year study is off by 7.69%. Now we look at what is said in the published article; the " permanent residents " were interviewed 6 times in regards to Lyme; now these are million dollar homes near the ocean and they use contract labor to service most of their landscapes. How many of these contract laborers ( Felipe, Juan Pablo and Jesu`s ) were interviewed about Lyme disease over that 13 or 14 year period ? All these workers are the ones that will actually contract Lyme with their contact through their work. Lyme reports for these laborers come from the surrounding town clinics, mainly Groton, CT. This study is ridiculous, 213 acres of land ( 1/3 square mile ) and three to four deer over a 13 or even 14 year period. At any given time the deer population can change by 100% by deer coming over from Bluff Point. But Lymefree ( Dave Streit ) and Odoridiculous ( Dr. Scott Williams ) consider this study to be the " Holey Grail " of tick studies and evidence that less deer = less Lyme. On the contrary; deer makeup less than 1% of the wildlife on Mumford Cove, CT. Removing less than 1% of wildlife on any given area will not change Lyme; even if it`s done over 13 or even 14 years.

And for the workers - Felipe, Juan Pablo y `s Jesu -

Este es el problema cuando el público encontrar errores en su estudio teórico de Lyme. Hallazgos de los públicos son despedidos como "no revisada por pares". Así que todos estos profesionales no podían ni siquiera averiguar si el estudio fue un estudio de 13 o 14 años; y usted quiere que nosotros tragamos este estudio Lyme con una línea de conexión pre resultado determinado y lastre? La diferencia del estudio de 13 a 14 años está desactivada de 7,69%. Ahora nos fijamos en lo que se dice en el artículo publicado; los "residentes permanentes" se entrevistó a 6 veces en lo que respecta a Lyme; ahora se trata de casas de millones de dólares cerca de la costa y utilizan mano de obra contratada para dar servicio a la mayoría de sus paisajes. ¿Cuántos de estos trabajadores contratados (Felipe, Juan Pablo y `s Jesu) fueron entrevistados acerca de la enfermedad de Lyme en ese período de 13 o 14 años? Todos estos trabajadores son los que realmente contraerán Lyme con su contacto a través de su trabajo. Lyme informa de estos trabajadores provienen de las clínicas de la ciudad de los alrededores, sobre todo Groton, CT. Este estudio es ridículo, 213 acres de tierra (1/3 de milla cuadrada) y te a cuatro ciervos ciervos durante un período de 13 o incluso 14 años. En un momento dado la población de ciervos se puede cambiar en un 100% por los ciervos que venía de Bluff Point. Pero Lymefree (Dave Streit) y Odoridiculous (Dr. Scott Williams) consideran que este estudio sea la "Holey Grial" de los estudios de garrapatas y la evidencia de que menos ciervos = menos de Lyme. De lo contrario; maquillaje ciervos menos de 1% de la vida salvaje en Mumford Cove, CT. Extracción de menos de 1% de la vida silvestre en un área determinada no va a cambiar de Lyme; incluso si él `s hecho más de 13 o incluso 14 años.

Lymefree (Dave Streit) Odoridiculous (Dr. Scott Williams) son muy grandes loco