Don't care if you are or aren't Dave Streit. I doubt your name is Bill Free. That's all I need to know. Whatever else you have to say is of no importance. If you can't level with anyone regarding who you are, you have no credibility with anything else.
you have lost me. I was open to listen, but your lack of honesty concerning your identities and dismissive comments concerning the residents complaints about WB tell me that you have an agenda that benefits you personally.
Your posts are in vain.
Go away....or sack up and meet for coffee.
I bet that comes as quite a shock to the Greenwich Sportman & Landowners Association which was formed in 1991 and began actively promoting bowhunting as a means to control the deer population.
The link below describes a project undertaken between the GSLA and the Greenwich Audubon society put forth in August 2003:
http://jackfsanders.tripod.com/deer/audubon.htm
Dave Shugarts delves deep into the science behind the diseases. “There is a great deal of confusion about the role of deer and the deer tick. Our job is to help people cut through the noise and understand the reproductive success of deer ticks is directly tied to the number of deer. It’s basic population ecology, but it can get confusing quickly when bad information is being circulated.” explained Mr. Shugarts.
Actually in free-ranging (non-insular settings) there's actually very little confusion:
In "The Coming Plague: Newly emerging diseases in a world out of Balance" (I have this book by the way) Laurie Garrett (Pulitzer prize winning author) cites Andy Spielman from the Harvard School of Public Health who showed that "getting rid of deer in a region didn't eliminate Lyme disease."
Ms. Garrett,now senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations, also stated that Spielman "very much felt that the mice were the key. I never heard Andy say we should slaughter the deer."
Spielman did however develop a novel way of effectively dealing with the tick that carries the spirochete:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/centennial-andrew-spielman-vs-the-deer-tick/
In "Ecology and environmental management of Lyme disease" S.R. Telford stated that "Eradication...is not achievable for any vector-borne infection."
Lastly, to further illustrate the point in the danger of assuming that the successes in insular settings such as Mumford Cove or Monhegan Island can be replicated in free-ranging situations can be highlighted in this NJ study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17915504
You'll note (once you do the conversion from km2 to mi2) that the deer density achieved was actually 8.2 dpsm. Again, in a non-insular setting with other mammalian hosts available simple reduction of the deer herd will not eliminate Lyme disease.
I'm all for disease control and in insular settings absent other potential mammalian hosts deer reduction has been proven to be effective. Outside of those settings though it has not and to promote it as such either shows ignorance of the realities of vector-borne diseases or some other motivation is behind the call to kill those kinds of numbers of deer.
"It is pretty simple"
OK, you have expressed your concern. Everybody has read your concerns and rationale. No One is buying it. Move on and pester someone else who might care.
If you have 24.3 deer/km2 and it takes 2.58999 km2 to make 1 sm, 24.3 deer/km2 x 2.58999 km2/sm = 62.9 deer/sm.
Jordan et al reduced deer 47%, from 118 deer/sm to 63 deer/sm and saw no reduction in ticks. No kidding. That's more than 6 times the 10 deer/sm threshold further proving the argument.
But you are right, the tick tubes showed some effectiveness on juvenile stages of the ticks. Better start saving up your toilet paper rolls!
A: Reported? Irrelevant.
THANK GOD!!!
If it is irrelevant, let's just stop talking about it.
THIS IS MY LAST POST ON ANY SLYME OR ODORIFEROUS HIGHJACKED THREADS.
The Mumford Cove, CT tick study ended in 2008.........The 2011 written report ( Public Health Rep. 2011 May-Jun; 126(3): 446–454.) reported the deer population was - 3.8 dpkm 2.
In 2014 the written report changed ( Authors: Kilpatrick, Howard J.; Labonte, Andrew M.; Stafford, Kirby C. Source: Journal of Medical Entomology, Volume 51, Number 4, Pages 725-906, pp. 777-784(8) ) reported the deer population was 5.1 dpkm 2; so which is it 3.8 or 5.1 ?
Can you explain the 25% increase in deer population between the two test reports 2011 - 2014 after the study had already ended in 2008 ?
Despite this, I looked into it. The Public Health report cited Howard's Managing CT Urban Deer brochure in which he (Howard) states on page 3 "The deer population in Mumford Cove was reduced from about 77 deer per square mile to about 10 deer per square mile after 2 years of controlled hunting." Clearly the authors of the Public Health report merely did the conversion when stating the "approximately 3.8 deer/km2" as 10 deer/sm divided by 2.58999 km2/sm = 3.8 deer/km2. The Managing Urban Deer brochure was clearly for public consumption and generalities were used. The key words are "about" 10 deer/sm and "approximately" 3.8 deer/km2 as these are not meant to be exact numbers as you and many others challenge.
In his 2014 publication, you are right, Howard says there were 5.1 deer/km2. I'm not sure where those numbers were derived. Maybe he surveyed less of an area but saw the same number of deer. Regardless, we are still talking about "approximately 10 deer/square mile". We are in the same margin of error. 13 deer/sm is "about 10 deer/sm". Beyond this explanation, you'll have to communicate with Howard directly.
you admit that the tubes work, so why would you need them any other place then on the property where residents are concerned about the epidemic LD outbreak? If the people aren't going into the large tracts of land that don't have the tubes, then what does it matter? Wouldn't the tick problem be solved where the people are, and you can leave the deer alone for the hunters?
Sounds like there are other options then killing the deer that carry the adult tick.
everything being done is experimental, including reducing the deer numbers to see the impact on LD and tick population,.....no answers are known for any of these that I've heard on this site.
I don't hunt suburbia so I don't have a dog in the fight, however killing deer to cure LD goes against my common sense. I've said it before, it's killing all the people to avoid the common cold (by the way, I have a cold now so don't get any ideas).
I believe that Big Buck Bob summed it up best when he said; " This is not about LD or ticks or deer its about someone using the system to benefit themselves. "
