Bowsite.com

After a thorough review of data from the CT DEEP and the CT Department of Health spanning the last 9 years, the facts do not appear to support the scientists’ hypothesis. From 2009-2014 the deer harvest rates in Redding; town owned open spaces plummeted by 95% ( 141 to 7 ) and town wide by 78% ( 321 to 70 ). In sharp contrast reported cases of Lyme increased by 62% + over the last 4 years despite this drop in deer harvest numbers. In comparison, Greenwich and Westport have stable populations of 25+ deer per square mile and Lyme disease rates remains low, even with deer populations nearly three times that of Redding.

This contradiction in the data raises several questions; What is the exact relationship between deer population and Lyme disease ? Given this question why does the CT DEEP continue to advocate the destruction of whitetail deer ? All numbers and data are from the CT DEEP and the Connecticut Department of Health.

Spike I totally agree. It makes no sense that lyme disease is solely related to deer. I'm sure they are involved or a player, but not the keystone.

Otherwise areas like ours in MA that have seen stable or decreasing deer numbers for the last 20 years should NOT have increasing lyme cases... but they do.

Small mammals and birds are reservoirs for Lyme, and blacklegged ticks feed on these animals. Deer are vectors and blood meals for the blacklegged tick nymphs, which are most active in spring and early summer, and deer are immune to Lyme disease. Although deer are - implicated - in the spread of blacklegged ticks (deer ticks) which vector Lyme disease, researchers have found varying conclusions on the relationship between deer densities and blacklegged tick densities.

http://www.caryinstitute.org/newsroom/study-questions-link-between-increases-lyme-disease-and-deer

Edit-link had worked prior to my posting, found out it was not working when I checked it-sorry!

Doesn't this support Streit who wants more deer killed and less lyme disease.

How is this helpful?

To be helpful shouldn't the amount of lyme disease be increasing or at lease stable, along with a corresponing increase in the amount of deer killed to demonstrate that killing more deer doesn't decrease the amount of lyme disease?

Less deer are being killed because there are less deer to be killed. What Streit, et al have stated repeatedly is that at deer densities of 10 dpsm (or less) Lyme disappears-completely. The facts from Redding do not support this conclusion and in fact, completely refute it.

One thing needs to be clearly understood about the "mantra" of the deer cull crowd; they continually cite studies (Mumford Cove, Monhegan Island, ME e.g.) as the definitive proof that you can eliminate Lyme disease solely by virtue of sustained deer culls.

The key factor in those situations is that they represent insular settings; either there is little to no inward migration from other deer to replace deer culled or those areas have vastly different ecologies (no other vectors for Lyme such as white-footed deer mice, voles, chipmunks, skunks, etc) to serve as a vector for Lyme in the absence of, or in very low deer population areas.

The fact of the matter is that these results, in very tightly controlled settings have never been replicated in a non-insular setting any time, any place, anywhere, EVER. No one in that crowd (Howard Kilpatrick, Kirby Stafford, Scott Williams, Dave Streit) can cite a single study that supports their approach in non-insular settings.

Ample evidence is readily available of areas of the US with low incidence of Lyme with high deer densities (many areas of the Midwest fall into this category as do areas in Western NY).

To your last question to me this highlights the ecological reality of any vector-borne disease; in the absence of a primary host a secondary, or mutliple secondary hosts will be utilized as long as it/they are present.

Taken in complete context I find the findings to be very helpful in rebutting the argument that the answer to reducing Lyme disease is indiscriminate deer slaughter.

Your point echoes my post above as it would with any vector-borne disease; in the absence of the primary (preferred) host the vector will seek out any available secondary host that will allow the completion of its life cycle.

This is why you see successes in insular settings without these secondary hosts available and why these successes have never been replicated in settings like Redding, Newtown or other such areas.

Passinthru,

When the public was acutely tuned into Lyme disease this was indeed a well-played card. When deer numbers really were in the 45-60 dpsm it took a number of years before the high harvest numbers effect became apparent.

We're at a point now in CT where we're not seeing evidence that the DEEP is fulfilling it's mission of managing our wildlife resource (deer). That alone would be cause for concern. Coupled with their misrepresentation of the deer/tick relationship in non-insular settings they are brewing a recipe for disaster; we'll see larger areas of 10 dpsm (or lower) and we'll see increases in Lyme cases as ticks move to other, readily available secondary hosts.

We as sportsmen need to take the lead here and contact the DEEP and make our feelings known.

Your making a logical leap that less deer being killed year over year by hunters = a lower overall population of deer year to year. Where is the data supporting this? There are innumerable reasons that hunters are less successful that may not have anything to do with the overall deer population in a given area.

The chart offers no support for a lower overall deer population it just states kill numbers. The two charts taken together without additional information is not at all helpful. I don't have a dog in this fight really, but this information doesn't convince me of anything.

Your making a logical leap that less deer being killed year over year by hunters = a lower overall population of deer year to year. Where is the data supporting this? There are innumerable reasons that hunters are less successful that may not have anything to do with the overall deer population in a given area.

The chart offers no support for a lower overall deer population it just states kill numbers. The two charts taken together without additional information is not at all helpful. I don't have a dog in this fight really, but this information doesn't convince me of anything.

There are more cars on the roads than ever, more houses being built in suburban areas, and yet roadkills continue to decline.

Maybe the area you hunt is one of those pockets that shows good deer numbers....but the herd is predicted to be almost half of what it was from 2006-2007.

Conversely, tick numbers seem as strong as ever.

1) There is decrease in the number of deer being killed by hunters in Redding

2) There are an increase in the number of lyme disease cases being reported in Redding.

Those two factors alone are not helpful to what I think the OP hopes to accomplish, in fact they appear to cut the other way if you assume that #1 is a causing factor of #2.

The state paid WB big money to fix the problem with too many deer in the area, therefore tick, therefore Lyme. The DEEP stated that hunters couldn't harvest enough deer, so they paid WB big money to fix the problem to reduce the deer herd and therefore fix the tick/lyme problem.

Point #2

If the state is saying (or Toonces) that WB was not successful in reducing the deer herd in the area, then that would explain increasing Lyme disease numbers. But it would also mean that the DEEP made a big mistake in paying WB big money to do nothing to impact the problem, in fact, they made it worse just based upon the data of increased lyme reporting.

So, I'm guessing the state has painted itself into a bit of a corner and I wonder how they will explain this data. Since they used the road kill and lyme disease numbers to justify WB, then they can't use those same numbers to say it was a success.

I think what Toonces is saying is correct in that the state will say, once again, that there are too many deer, hunters continue to fail to take the deer needed, and they'll hire WB again. I sure hope not.

if the state is issuing them another round of permits I'd love for someone to explain why?? They failed last year so they're going to repeat the process and expect a different outcome. Right!

You raise a valid point that absent some other pertinent data it is possible there can be another conclusion to what the OP states.

Even absent additional data though there is a clear statistical trend that doesn't seem to lend credence to the other factors other than a crashing deer population.

If you look at 7 of the 8 years (2005-2012) you see a fairly stable harvest rate (and the outlier is an increase, not decrease). Suddenly in 2013 the harvest rate takes a steep dive. I for one would find it hard to make the case that factors other than a steep population decline could explain that sharp a decline in harvest.

OK, to be fair, that's a hypothesis. Let's start to inject some hard numbers and see where that leads us.

The DEEP provides us with "estimates" of our deer population. They do so by performing aerial transects with 2 observers counting the deer. Studies have shown this to have an accuracy of 80%, hence the now infamous "correction factor." For context on why anyone might have cause to question this methodology being used to forumulate tag allotments ask yourself if you were to hire a contractor to perform significant work on your home and they told you they guarantee 80% of their work would you sign that contract?

OK, back to hard numbers. In it's 2013 Deer Harvest Summary Publication the DEEP reported a statewide average success rate of 37.0% for all bowhunters, with a 43.5% success rate for Zone 11.

The most recent state published aerial transect of Redding produced a deer density estimate of 34.3 dpsm in Redding. As Redding has a total square mileage of 31.5 sq miles according to this estimate a "reasonable population estimate of the Redding deer herd would be (all numbers following will be rounded off for viewing ease) 1,080 deer.

OK, we have a head count and we have a state report showing bowhunter success rates. Now let's see how the numbers correlate.

If the 2013 Redding deer population was 1,080 deer, using the 3-year statewide average should have equated to 400 deer being harvested by archers in 2013, and if you use the Zone 11 rate that number would be 476 deer.

Let's check the harvest stats on our graph for 2013. That number was 159 (141 from hunters, 18 from archery program). Even allowing for a 1 to 2 standard deviation variance the numbers don't add up.

What if the state's numbers are wrong? Hmmm, let's ponder that thought for a minute and then let's look at what some of the people who have had boots on the ground in Redding for a good number of years say the "real" number is. Some are arguing the real number is 8-10 dpsm.

OK, let's put those numbers to the test using the same year, same state-reported harvest rates. At 8 dpsm (274 deer in Redding)and the state 3-year average the harvest would be 101 deer. Using the Zone 11 average the number would be 119 deer.

At 10 dpsm those numbers would be 117 deer and 137 deer.

470 versus 159 or 137 versus 159; now it may be just me but the second "actual" number does seem significantly closer to the "estimated" number (based on herd size and reported harvest success rate).

It certainly seems reasonable, and I'd argue plausible that the people who've been saying the dpsm number is a lot more like 10 than 34 are pretty close to being spot on.

8-10 dpsm is right about the 10-12 dpsm the studies from insular settings claim is "magic time" for the reduction, if not elimination of lyme disease cases.

Well, there is reasonable evidence to support that we're there and the lyme cases are increasing, not decreasing, let alone disappearing.

I will repeat what I've said earlier in this thread and on others; I do not dispute the results of Mumford Cove, Mohengan Island, ME or any insular settings. The facts are there and they support that in such settings you can reduce or eliminate lyme disease by reducing the deer herd.

That being said it is paramount to understand that these results have not been reproduced EVER in non-insular settings such as Redding. No one touting Mumford Cove and similar studies can produce a single supporting document for non-insular settings.

To advance the argument that the same approach that worked at Mumford Cove will work in Redding (or any other town) is to claim that the Emperor really does have clothes.

The emperor has no clothes and the CT DEEP has no case to justify continued decimation of the deer herd in Redding or any other non-insular setting in CT.

To play devil's advocate, nothing there proves that number of deer killed by hunters have anything to do with the overall population. For what it's worth I personally think there probably is a correlation, but nothing here is convincing me.

What about the following variables:

1) The number of overall hunter hours year over year in Redding. Based on the comments on this board over the years, Redding has gone from a prime destination to a wasteland. It seems hunters are abandoning Redding for greener pastures. A decrease in hunters would mean a decrease in kills, even if the average success rate per hunter remained stable. Don't you need to know the actual hunter hours in Redding to make any kind of judgement with regards to the number of deer killed?

2) Land available for hunting. There could be less private land open, or the fewer hunters that stayed in town are locking up access to more available areas meaning less hunter density overall for the land available.

3) The weather. A few wash out weekends could impact overall kills.

4) Acorn crop

5) Predators - seem to be more regional than I thought based on comments on this board. Redding could have a run of predators that other towns are not seeing lowering the number of hunter kills.

6) Hunter self control. Hunter's choosing to kill less deer or be more selective.

To play devil's advocate, nothing there proves that number of deer killed by hunters have anything to do with the overall population. For what it's worth I personally think there probably is a correlation, but nothing here is convincing me.

What about the following variables:

1) The number of overall hunter hours year over year in Redding. Based on the comments on this board over the years, Redding has gone from a prime destination to a wasteland. It seems hunters are abandoning Redding for greener pastures. A decrease in hunters would mean a decrease in kills, even if the average success rate per hunter remained stable. Don't you need to know the actual hunter hours in Redding to make any kind of judgement with regards to the number of deer killed?

2) Land available for hunting. There could be less private land open, or the fewer hunters that stayed in town are locking up access to more available areas meaning less hunter density overall for the land available.

3) The weather. A few wash out weekends could impact overall kills.

4) Acorn crop

5) Predators - seem to be more regional than I thought based on comments on this board. Redding could have a run of predators that other towns are not seeing.

That information can be provided by:

A brain and at least one working eye.

No problem, I can appreciate taking the cautious approach. Let me try and address the variables you listed.

1) The number of overall hunter hours...

Having received the Annual DEP Summary I can attest to the overall consistency on hunter participation. Additionally, as the year I used was 2013 and 2012 was still on a good trend I wouldn't expect a decrease to manifest in that time frame. 2014 would be potentially a year to see that but we're talking about 2013 and I don't see this being in play. Lastly, the number of bowhunting licenses has been on an upward climb for the past 3 years.

2) Land available for hunting...

Definitely not the problem in Redding and landowner access has been on a steady upward climb for awhile now in Fairfield County.

3) The weather. A few wash out weekends could impact overall kills.

Unlikely when looking at a 8-9 year period with remarkably consistent numbers until 2013. We've had worse fall and winter weather, especially in terms of rainfall.

4) Acorn crop

Not likely as we've had poor mast crops until this past year statewide. Poor mast crops produce more deer movement and provide more opportunities for hunters. Baiting also has a mitigating effect on poor "natural" production of food.

5) Predators...

Possible but again not likely to produce such a steep decline. Coyotes have been a problem in lower Fairfield County since the mid-2000's and the numbers of deer harvested in Redding didn't really slide until 2013.

6) Hunter self control.

This tends to manifest itself more in terms of passing on younger bucks and is still more the exception than the rule. The number of replacement tags and "earn a buck" tags issued would seem to support this analysis.

I tend to be a person who is analytical (probably why I'm a scientist) and I also don't take matters of importance with anything less than full commitment and seriousness.

The more time I spent looking at the numbers and trying to reconcile them with herd estimates the more out of proportion the two sets of numbers seemed.

Diving a bit deeper it appears that 3 individuals here; Airrow, Ace and Rooster were not the little boy crying wolf but the voices of reason trying to sound the alarm that something was very wrong with how the CT deer herd was being managed.

You may recall a couple of cowards who posted under fictitious names about 6-7 months ago scoffed at their claims about deer densities in Redding. They were called "The 3 Horsemen of the Apocalypse" and "the hunters who ruined bowhunting opportunities in Fairfield County" for all of us. Every attempt was made to minimize their message.

Well, to me at least the answer is clear; they were right and the cowards were wrong. I don't believe in coincidences and I don't think it's a coincidence that when I model their deer density estimates for Redding with state statistics versus DEEP estimates for deer density in Redding versus the same statistics that the 3 individuals I mentioned are almost dead on the money accurate and the CT DEEP deer densitites are more than 300% off of the mark.

I'll accept a few standard deviations off, maybe even 20% off but >300% off? If that's not a mathematical impossibility I'll bet my life it damn sure is a mathematical improbability.

I don't see how any of us can sit back and swallow the swill that's being served up masquerading as "sound wildlife management."

It's our deer herd and it's high time we stop the inmates from running the asylum.

Thanks for putting up with the rant folks; this has been building up in me for a bit now.

Mike........... Thanks

Big Buck Bob.......The CAES is in its last year of the 3 year study in Redding CT. Each year at this time; Susan Whalen of the CT DEEP signs off and reissues the special permission for White Buffalo to take deer for the study. This year’s permit is for approximately 25 deer; pending the aerial survey results. White buffalo is slated to be paid $32,500 or about $1,300 per deer. It appears that last year when the CT DEEP issued the permit for 100 fewer deer, the pay out amount was not adjusted by the CAES to reflect a 40% reduction in value from the original 250 deer contract with White Buffalo. The State of CT, CT DEEP and CAES need to correct this. They also need to review the low deer numbers in Redding, CT prior to reissuing another cull permit.

I like the discussion points and I believe that Toonces's approach of getting ALL the data is the more scientific. However, getting ALL the data is difficult for some data points when it comes to wildlife.

How many times has the science told us that a species was extinct, only to be found alive and well a couple years later?

In my opinion, the limit data we have lends itself to the conclusion that there are far fewer deer in the area then were previously reported, and that lyme disease does NOT correspond to increases and decreases to the deer population.

If the data in the number of deer is presented, we will dispute the numbers or methodology anyway and we'll never be happy.

OK, going back to the more fun threads now. Did you guys invite oloriferous to comment yet?

I think he's trying to come up with a new alias for the site and deny his true identity. We're dangling the bait, let's see if he bites.

The recognition of the need for improvement is not a recent phenomenon but goes back almost two decades.

While the point raised about increased awareness potentially translating into increased case detection is certainly valid and should not be dismissed, the other side of the coin is that inferior tests can lead to questionable, if not "false positive" results and may have artifically inflated incidence rates. (this really should have been addressed by confirmatory testing of screening test postiives by Western blot but this was not always the case.)

I've no doubt that increased clinician scrutiny may also be facilitated by the increasingly litigious nature of society over the years.

Lastly, pay attention to the attached link of CDC cases by state from 2005-2013. Pay particular attention to midwest states with areas of good deer densitities (OK, TX, IL, IN, AR for example) with remarkably low incidence of Lyme disease. Remember the mantra? More deer equals more Lyme? Compare the incidence rates for those states by year to CT over the same timeframe. Something isn't adding up, unless you consider other possible vectors as potential hosts for B. burgdorferi.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC408026/

http://cvi.asm.org/content/15/6/981.full

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:eVXsUOm2vi8J:austinpublishinggroup.com/chronic-diseases/download.php%3Ffile%3Dfulltext/chronicdiseases-v1-id1009.pdf+&cd=26&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

I wonder if they just have less mice in those areas with low lyme disease??