Bowsite.com

Looking forward to the results of this survey and how it will be spun by the groups involved.

I've stated in other threads on this topic that the aerial survey method is best suited to estimating population trends, not as a census tool. FLIR provides an actual census of the resident deer herd (granted there are limitations and these can be researched; you can draw your own conclusions.)

While there can be "pockets" of stable deer populations there has been a growing trend (as reported here by experienced bow hunters) of a steady decline in the deer herd, especially in Fairfield County.

When we as hunters are presented with deer densities that do not appear to be consistent with what we are seeing we have two options; to accept at face value these "estimates" and hope that they are indeed accurate, realizing the impact of them being inaccurate could be a negative impact on hunting opportunities that could extend over multiple years.

Option two is to take the initiative to ensure current management practices are still appropriate for the current, true status of the deer herd.

Personally I have always preferred to operate in the realm of the known as opposed to the unknown, especially given the ramifications involved.

Given those ramifications I am certainly willing to receive an "I told you so" from the CT DEEP; to be perfectly honest I'd really prefer to be proven wrong as it would mean we haven't reached the tipping point yet.

Again, in all honesty, I am concerned that the FLIR survey will show what many here have been very concerned about; that the estimated deer densities are well off the mark and we may be looking at successive seasons of fewer opportunities and the need to make some drastic changes to the current deer management system.

I am NOT a "the sky is falling" type; far from it. I'm chiming in because of the gravity of the situation and the need to get in front of it while we still have time.

One method counts deer from the air based on their heat signature, records it on video, and can be looked at and verified. Often done at night.

The other one visually counts deer out of the window of a plane or helicopter and uses a Multiplier to account for the ones you can't see but are sure are there. Always done during daylight hours.

Both methods have their fans, and neither is perfect.

One of them is quite dependent on the skills of the person doing the counting and choosing a valid "multiplier", the other uses technology to try to take the human error (unintentional or otherwise) out of the equation.

Does that help?

Stay with me here...If the count shows above the arbitrary 10-12 DPSM, we can never get the tag allotment down. I know I want more deer and more big deer out there - doesn's matter the area. But if the count does indeed show a disctint drop in deer density, what will that mean?

Here's the question I would like to ask - How many of you can take this next season and not kill any does?

http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/outdoor-activities/hunting/regulations/count-deer-population1.htm

1. Wild Bill-valid question and one easily explained; the CT DEEP uses the aerial transect method to "estimate" deer densities. This methodology is employed in every area surveyed, so it is not necessary to have a basis for comparison for every site; a 1:1 method comparison will suffice.

Regarding the WB impact you mention; as part of the study being conducted aerial surveys have been and will be done post-hunting (including WB). The contention has been that the "boots-on-the-ground" observations don't line up with the deer densities being reported for some parts of Fairfield County. The independent FLIR has been done, let's see how those numbers line up with the next DEEP numbers.

If the FLIR and aerial transect numbers are close that's one thing; if however the FLIR numbers are lower by a statistically significant amount then we have a problem, and a very serious one in that the DEEP method is being used to assess the health of deer herd and season lengths and tag numbers.

2. FLIR has limitations; the greatest involve surveying areas with dense coniferous trees. The latest peer-reviewed literature places the accuracy anywhere from 50-80% in those settings. In deciduous settings the accuracy jumps to 86% and in open ground 100%.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander; heavy coniferous settings thick enough to mask heat signatures are also very likely to be too thick for the human eye to see through. Aerial transect misses 20% of deer in deciduous and open settings (hence the 0.8 multiplier for 2 observers) so in both settings that accuracy is less than FLIR.

Regarding a "correction factor" for FLIR; this method will only report deer detected and confirmed upon subsequent analysis. No guesswork, no correction factor, just confirmed results. Given the ramifications of getting these counts wrong I would much prefer hitching our wagon to the method with the least amount of human error possible.

3. Excellent point from Bloodtrail about the willingness to shoot fewer does, especially if the FLIR counts confirm what more than a few suspect about the true deer population. If the herd is crashing the quickest way to restoring it to sustainable levels is to take fewer does.

If, hypothetically, the DEEP falls down on the job of accurately monitoring deer populations then it is the responsibility of we hunters to become the best stewards of the herd we possibly can. Yes, there will always be those who will go their own way; each of us need only concern ourselves with the hunters we can control-ourselves.

4. Where are the numbers? As I indicated above after the FLIR report the heat signatures are confirmed; this takes time to complete a thorough analysis. I would much rather have these numbers be right than be rushed.

We'll get the numbers soon enough.

What is happening in Redding, CT is only the start and will continue throughout the State of Connecticut unless sportsmen speak up and are heard. If the sportsmen do not push back there will be no reason to buy a license or venture afield. The state has taken away your rights and shown you how few liberty`s and justice you have.

The sportsmen of Connecticut need to find their voice. The few can lead the many.

Recognizing the reality that the internet isn't always the ideal format for conveying intended meaning I'm willing to concede the above is an honest inquiry as opposed to something less noble.

That being said, the company that was contracted is headquarted in Idaho and was also contracted to conduct a FLIR survey on either Block Island or Long Island (I'm in Charlotte, NC at the airport flying back from Cancun right now so I don't have all my usual references right at hand-forgive me).

The company, like many successful business ventures tries to operate in a cost-effective manner. To this end they typically will conduct surveys in a "loop" (in a particular region, say the NE) and then return to home base and start the work of processing the films they've taken and generating the deer counts and sending out the reports to their respective requestors.

Under the best of circumstances this typically runs 2-3 weeks. The original post was put up on Jan 13th; under best-case scenario the report would not be ready to be sent before Jan 27th to Feb 3rd. I have never done business with this company so I cannot speak to the means of transmission; snail mail, fax, scan, email so I don't know the transit time.

What I do know is today is Jan 22nd so there is no need for histrionics and certainly no need to be casting aspersions on anyone's character.

I certainly have other things on my mind at the moment than responding to what I consider personally to be a snide if not insulting post. I am now speaking solely for myself; I operate on providing people the benefit of the doubt unless there is unequivocable evidence that they don't deserve it. I give people the respect of posing questions about their intentions or integrity on a face-to-face basis whenever possible or over the phone is not feasible.

I do not type behind a keyboard and lob mortars at people's character. Again, speaking for myself alone I consider that type of behavior to be nothing less than cowardly. If that offends you, I have an email; feel free to either post another reply for the viewing public or contact me personally about either a phone conversation of a face-to-face one. I do not hide from anyone and I would certainly have accorded you more respect than you've shown here.

The number of people who have footed the bill for this survey is no more than a handful and perhaps only 1 (none of which are me for clarity); this is to the tune of $13,000. This was done to benefit all CT hunters by the way and there is ZERO guarantee of any of that being refunded or matched. Let me know the amount of your matching check and the plans you have to put it in the mail.

Absent putting a check in the mail do try and avoid putting your foot in your mouth with such regularity.

not really it benefits REDDING hunters....

To avoid any confusion or feelings that I might have a vested interest; I do not hunt, nor have I ever hunted in Redding. I have no intention of changing that track record.

That being said the statement you made is emblamatic of the inability to see beyond the immediate and realize the ramifications.

The state uses the exact same aerial transect method to assess the health of the CT deer herd for all the zones is CT-all of them.

The method is the same in Bristol, Windham, Glastonbury, Essex, Danbury, etc. as it is in Redding.

That methodology's accuracy has been called into question by what many, not just the main posters on these types of threads have been saying for years. As you have to start somewhere to attempt to prove (or disprove) those questions Redding was the first site selected.

If the private survey comes back with a statistically significant number from the state's aerial survey numbers then we have a serious problem. That problem now impacts every one of us. Maybe not today and maybe not tomorrow but one day as sure as the sun rises in the east it will.

I can't make it any plainer than that; you have to know that the basis of setting bag limits and the rationale for season lengths is bedrock solid in terms of accuracy. There is no room for "close enough".

The CT DEEP would not have access to the results of the privately contracted FLIR survey BEFORE the contractors; to date they are still awaiting the results.

I'm sure it is as Ace mentions above, an honest mistake.

I became aware that after the DEEP became aware of the privately contracted FLIR they contracted to have one of their own done.

It may be this second survey that your friend is referring to.

A thread was started in regard to this and questioned whether or not any bias may have been built into the count.

That's Priceless!

Governments are well known to be models of efficiency and fiscal responsibilty. Just ask them.

My point is that the discrepancy in cost between the two shows that the FLIR survey done over the entire town had to have used as a grid-like sampling scheme for that cost and was not a true survey of all 32 square miles.

Seems that you just keep wanting me to pull the string so you can dance around some more. OK, Pinocchio I'll play.

When it came out, (at that meeting) that you had not done a survey of the deer numbers in Redding before you started shooting them, Rick Jacobson thought that would be a good idea going forward.

If you'd had done a count before you started, you might have realized that the numbers you assumed were there were grossly overestimated.

But you were so much smarter than everyone else that you just proceeded. You said you'd do the count afterwards and add back in the dead deer.

Before that meeting most of us had no idea how arrogant you were, and how easily you become unglued when concerned informed citizens ask you questions. (It was sort of fun to watch really)

I believe the comment was made to the effect that "we won't be letting the PhDs get in front of a crowd anymore if we can help it". (that one made me smile, I have to admit)

Let me recap for those who were not present at your coming out party:

-You and your co-researchers secured $900,000 of taxpayer's money for a tick study.

-You got permission to kill 250 deer in Redding over a 3 year period for your Tick Study.

-The first year of your Tick study, You shot a total of 51 deer in the 2 Deer Reduction zones. (A much lower number than the permit allowed, guess you couldn't find them huh?

-You counted the deer AFTER your first year of killing and added back in the ones you killed.

-You said that the 2 areas had 30 deer per square mile before the study. (must not have counted too many lives ones)

There's more but I'll leave it at that for now.

I will address your emotional response here with facts without resorting to name calling.

First of all your timeline is off, like you missed a year. We went into the study using the DEEP estimate of 60/sm. We flew on 15 Feb 2013 to get the 30+/sm estimate, and yes, 16 deer had been taken before the flight. The Putnam Park meeting was nearly a year later on 9 January 2014. It was at the meeting I talked about the 30 estimate. So you can see we did do a survey nearly a year before the meeting, but hadn't done one yet in 2014 due to lack of snow cover.

-Actually you are wrong about the $900,000. The Feds gave us more money after the project started. It's $975,000.

-Yes we were granted permission from DEEP to take 250 deer based on the 60 deer/sm estimate. But you know that was scaled back after the Putnam Park meeting.

-First year of the study we found densities were about half of the DEEP 60/sm estimate and our subcontractor took half of what we anticipated, all after the hunting season had ended.

-You seem hung up on estimating deer abundance after some have been removed. Why? If I have 16 dead deer I can lay them out on the ground and count them: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. I know that these 16 deer were on the research site for certain without a doubt and of those 16 deer, I know there are 0 that I didn't see. So while you may disagree with it, it doesn't mean it's not a valid method.

-When we applied for the grant in 2010, the only estimate we had was DEEP's of 60/sm. When the grant was awarded and we started work down there over 3 years later, we saw there were fewer.

Clearly you are emotional about this study, but what happened to the Chas who made statements on this site like "What this means is that there WILL BE FEWER DEER. That is not open for discussion, the [Redding] Residents have demanded it, the Conservation Commission, and the Selectman's Office are working towards it. Frankly almost nobody disagrees that the population needs to be much lower." (Link provided). So why all the bellyaching now?? Isn't a lower deer population what you and the Town wanted?

What's the problem with this? Well Gee Wiz Scott, you assumed there were 60 psm, so since you were shooting in 2 sq miles, that would have been 120 deer. Turns out there were only 60 deer there, you were off by 100%.

THAT'S the problem with it! Your very results demonstrate the ridiculous inaccuracy of your pre-study assumption. You say it's a valid technique, I guess you're ok with results like that. Must be a government thing.

You make it sound like you adjusted your study to the lower deer numbers but we all know that until it was forced upon you, you defended the 60 deer psm number until your face got red and your voice got all high and squeaky. Oh, and it was the DEEP who adjusted your numbers, not you.

And by the way, does this wording sound familiar?:

Our deer reductions will be conducted by subcontract with White Buffalo, Inc. (Moodus, CT). This company has extensive experience in both lethally removing (>10,000 deer) and capturing deer (>1000 deer) in a variety of human occupied environments without incident while following animal welfare and American Veterinary Medical Association’s stringent guidelines for humane euthanasia of animals. Arial deer surveys conducted by CAES and White Buffalo in 2008 over portions of Redding, Easton, and Weston, CT determined that deer densities are approximately 11.6 animals/km2 (30/ mi2)

Actually there were 2 distinct surveys that occurred over 3 separate days. I can understand your disbelief given the disparity in pricing. The privately funded FLIR surveys encompassed 70sm at a cost of $13,000 which equates to a cost of $185/sm.

Conversely the state FLIR encompassed 4sm at a cost of $6,500 which equates to a cost of $1,625/sm.

An excellent point was made above about business being better negotiators than govenrment entities and this disparity seems to emphatically drive that point home. (It also may shed some light into our state's never-ending budget woes...)

Allow me to offer some professional insight into this situation. Since I left the clinical side of healthcare in 1999 I have been employed in the Industry side of healthcare. During these 15+ years I have learned to navigate a myriad of contracting entities; on the private side GPO's (Group Purchasing Organizations) to which many hospitals belong and which offer their members "preferred" (discounted) pricing.

On the government side I deal with the GSA schedule (Government Services Administration) and the FSS (Federal Supply Schedule) when contracting, for example with Health Departments and the VA System. By federal statute any item on the GSA or FSS must be priced at the lowest market price available.

Where things get interesting is when a government entity wants to make an off-contract (not on either GSA or FSS) purchase. Under these conditions the supplier is not obligated to offer any discount and typically, the starting point in negotiations is list price, with at best a modest discount offered.

Businesses who are more accustomed to the give-and-take of negotiating (as opposed to growing complacent with government mandated pricing) immediately take the axe to the first price proposed and by-and-large wind up with a much more favorable price.

If your procurement department isn't aware of this reality you get hosed-literally.

Government does very few things efficiently.

We wouldn't have had to spend that money on the survey at all had you not required it after the Putnam Park meeting. Remember when DEEP added it on as another stipulation in our Authorization?

I would agree with the above provided the reference is only to the Feb 11, 2014 survey. If not I would refer you to the following excerpt taken from page 9 of your revised ITM Study proposal:

"Density Estimation: To estimate deer density, aerial snow counts will be conducted over the 1 mile2 areas using the subject neighborhood as a central point at each of the 4 study areas for each of the three years, or as funding permits."

The Jan 24, 2014 survey would seem to fall under the parameters of the ITM study as would the prior year's flights.

My point is that the discrepancy in cost between the two shows that the FLIR survey done over the entire town had to have used as a grid-like sampling scheme for that cost and was not a true survey of all 32 square miles.

post hoc, ergo propter hoc (I've always liked the Latin equivalent of "logical fallacy"; it just looks and sounds so much better.....)

The discrepancy in cost reflects the difference between a business negotiating on a "best-price" practice versus the state taking what it could get; nothing more.

While you are every bit as entitled to post conjecture as anyone else here your supposition is flawed from the beginning for a few reasons:

1. You were not an involved party and therefore have no knowledge with respect to the terms and conditions of the agreeement between said parties, nor do you have foreknowledge of the methodology(ies) agreed upon by said contracting parties.

2. You were not present during any of the 3 days flown so this would not present a basis of support for your conjecture as to the survey methodology.

3. Link provided to further illustrate your lack of understanding on the two methodologies; for example on page 9 you will find: "grid sampling more robust, statistically rigorous method of sampling than transects."

Additionally a review of the charts on page 12 will show much greater efficiency of the grid versus transect method.

The efficiency impact could certainly help as it is my understanding that aerial surveys undertaken by the CT DEEP are contracted on an hourly basis; if, as alluded to in the reference above the grid method requires a smaller % of area surveyed that would translate into savings.

Now if the procurement department is happy to pay 778% (the difference between paying $185/sm versus $1,625/sm) more than necessary, far be it from me to suggest they alter their purchasing and contracting policies.

To be clear, I was also not party to the contracting nor on any of the flights so I do not know which method was employed. What I do know now though is that having done research first then rendered an opinion I am in the more favored position of speaking from some basis of fact as opposed to the less desirable position of speaking absent knowledge of the subject matter.

Or, to put it more colloquially, "when you find yourself in a hole it's a good time to stop digging."

http://www.bsh.de/de/Meeresnutzung/Wirtschaft/Windparks/Workshops/Digitale_Erfassung_10_2014_/APEM_experiences_after_one_year_of_digital_aerial_surveys_in_Germany.pdf

Attached link doesn't seem to want to work-copy link above and paste in browser and you'll get to the publication-sorry!

For someone who just got here because a friend told him about a post here, you really have knoledge of really old posts.

You sure you haven't been here before?

I am here because you guys continue to cloud facts to suit your arguments. Again, before we set foot in Redding, we used the best available estimate. At the time, was 60/sm. Then we determined factually in 2013 that it was lower than that (link provided). Then we did another survey in 2014 and saw that we had had minimal impact on the herd, then we did a FLIR survey here in 2015 after you guys and Crook yelled at us to do so at the Putnam meeting and said it was the only valid method. And guess what, there are still a ton of deer on the ground.

Toonces, that was not a rebuttal post. Rebuttals by definition cannot happen from the past. A rebuttal is a counter argument, meaning, I make my point and then you rebut that point. The reason for posting that was to illustrate Chas’s initial exuberance in promoting increased take of deer supposedly for public safety. But when they finally see the result of their actions, they backtrack and say they do not want densities THAT low. This all happened way before this study. We have just become the whipping boys for Redding’s successful deer management program. It is classic and is what I have a problem with, hunters advocating for public safety for selfish reasons, not actually for public safety. It is the attitude that will doom hunting as a deer management tool in residential settings, selfishness.

Crow, it's called Google.

I would just like to see the results. And now you are saying 70 square miles were surveyed in their entirety for $13,000? That is simply too good to be true. If that is the case, and truly the case as you purport, your detection rate is going to be terrible, but again, that is the result you seek. We paid for a hard count on 4 square miles. We did not pay to skim a large area and get poor results. But I guess we will see as we don’t know the results yet, right? You get what you pay for. . .

I suppose now we are even for the nearly 1 million dollars of federal pork spent to study ticks.

Arial deer surveys conducted by CAES and White Buffalo in 2008 over portions of Redding, Easton, and Weston, CT determined that deer densities are approximately 11.6 animals/km2 (30/ mi2)

Did I write those words? Probably, it has been a while. That was a survey paid for by The Nature Conservancy on Devil’s Den and Centennial Watershed lands 7 years ago. That was back at the end of the heyday and frankly, we were surprised at how low densities were. That survey dealt with large pieces of intact open space, nearly all of which were open to hunting, that we all know have historically lower deer densities compared to the higher densities in residential areas like we are dealing with in the ITM study. Don’t believe me? Ask Andy or Gregonis. They have logged more miles aloft counting deer than anyone in the state and we are in complete agreement on deer distribution across the landscape. Something Rick was trying to demonstrate to Siburn by using taxpayer money to take him flying in a helicopter.

You seem to have a consistent issue with keeping your facts straight; from the email below from Rick Jacobson it was clearly stated that you had the option of the aerial survey OR the FLIR.

From: "Jacobson, Rick" Date: January 10, 2014 5:31:48 PM To: "'Rep. Shaban, John'" ,"'[email protected]'" ,"Robert T. Crook" ,"'[email protected]'" ,'Christian Siburn' Cc: "Kilpatrick, Howard" ,"Hyatt, William" ,"LaFrance, Robert" ,"Whalen, Susan"

Subject: CDC Integrated Tick Management Study - Redding

Representatives Shaban and Carter, Julie, Chris and Bob,

I’ve been working with Principal Investigators from the CAES on revising various conditions with the authorization granted for, among other things, the taking of deer by sharp shooting in Redding. The principal changes we are intending to incorporate are based on the commitments I made at the meeting last night and include:

1) Changing the number of deer that may be taken in 2014 and 2015 from 75 per year to ‘the number necessary to meet the study objectives based on the results of aerial surveys and shall not exceed 25 deer per year without prior consent of the Commissioner of DEEP’. The expectation is that the aerial surveys will indicate that fewer than 25 deer will be necessary, but if the number is higher than expected, the investigators will have to seek the commissioner’s consent before taking more than 25,

2) (NEW) Requiring that an aerial survey be conducted (either dual observer or FLIR) on the study blocks no more than three months before any deer may be taken,

3) (NEW) Requiring the condition and number of all fetuses be recorded, and

4) Retaining the requirement that all deer taken be donated to the Hunt to Feed program, and (NEW) expanding on the theme to require that any deer not taken by the Hunt to Feed program be processed by a commercial facility and the meat donated to a charitable organization focused on feeding the under-privileged in the Redding area (primary outlet), the Redding Volunteer Fire Department (secondary outlet), or another charitable organization focused on feeding the under-privileged outside the Redding area (tertiary outlet).

In addition, I am continuing to work with the investigators to formalize their commitment to expand their aerial surveys to include the four “walking survey” blocks the hunters described. However, we all need to be mindful that the investigator’s ability to perform such surveys is predicated on the hunters providing explicit coordinates (or other suitable distinguishing landscape characteristics) of the survey blocks (and the availability of snow). Is there anything that I’ve missed?

Rick

Rick Jacobson Director Wildlife Division Department of Energy and Environmental Protection 79 Elm Street Hartford, Connecticut 06106 voice: (860) 424-3482 email: [email protected]

We could have flown a snow count and then gone, but because of scheduling and lack of snow, we were forced to pay for a FLIR.

This was always an option as illustrated in the email above, and one that was a stipulation of the original study protocol. I doubt any reasonable person would lay blame at the feet of sportsmen for either the helicopter's schedule or the weather. Given that this is a cull and not hunting (not restricted based on the hunting season), and given the high likelihood of snow cover in all of CT by late January or early February, it is a weak argument to even suggest that with a year's advance notice of this requirement a flight could not have been scheduled that would have met the directive without additional cost.

It has nothing to do with Obama, government spending, and healthcare.

Aside from the fact that this is a non sequitur you completely miss the point of my post; specifically why there was such a pricing disparity between your FLIR survey and the privately contracted one. Given your credentials I did not feel that a “paint-by-numbers” presentation would be required for your to glean the pertinent information.

I would just like to see the results. And now you are saying 70 square miles were surveyed in their entirety for $13,000? That is simply too good to be true.

No, it is, as I pointed out above an example of sound negotiation versus a taking what you can get approach. We got value, you got taken-sorry, but that is the situation, and that is on your procurement department, not you.

If that is the case, and truly the case as you purport, your detection rate is going to be terrible

The detection rate will be identical to yours as both methods used the standard aerial transect method.

but again, that is the result you seek.

We seek the most accurate result humanly possible and would like to assume you feel likewise. That you would seek to infer an agenda absent knowledge of how the study was conducted again reflects poorly on you. Perhaps you are familiar with the writings of Sun Tzu? At times your responses seem to embody his philosophy that “when you are too weak to defend, attack.”

We paid for a hard count on 4 square miles. We did not pay to skim a large area and get poor results.

Neither did we; please do not begrudge our business acumen for getting better value for services. Again, an attack not based on any factual data that makes a blanket assumption that presumes dishonorable motivations only reflects poorly on you.

But I guess we will see as we don’t know the results yet, right? You get what you pay for...

Which is exactly why the private survey contracted with the best in the business at conducting FLIR surveys. Further, it is why the survey area was all of Redding and not a fragment in that as with any data collection process one would ideally want as large a representative sample as possible.

Frankly I think the sportsmen of CT deserve nothing less than the best possible means of data gathering.

The one thing that bothers me on the state's side of the arguement (I guess that would be you Dr. Williams & the DEEP) is that they changed their deer herd numbers more than once and yet they made decisions on these numbers that effect us, the hunters, and then wonder why we're upset with deer management in the state.

60 deer per sq mile vs 30 or 11 is not a small error! So why is WB killing more?

I understand that surveys are not done every year and I'm not disputing the number of deer estimated, or if it should be 60 or 30 per sq mile. The problem I see is that decisions are made using misinformation that effects us as hunters.

I called the DEEP twice last year to discuss the deer herd in the NW corner and they stated what they called FACTS and gave me the same attitude that I sense in your last reply "densities will just be disputed by hunters", implying that they are right and what we see in the woods is wrong.

I don't hunt in Redding, so I don't have a dog in that fight, but when I hear about WB coming in to shoot the over abundance of deer, but the deer per sq mile was wrong,.............well it's just wrong!

Doc seems all to willing to dismiss the possibility that the state may have indeed flushed taxpayers funds down the toilet by overpaying for the survey.

FWIW, an advanced degree in biology means absolutely nothing in a contract negotiation.

I’d like to take a moment now to summarize the facts relating to the situation in Redding, CT:

On January 12, 2015; Sportsmen of CT notified CT DEEP that their privately funded FLIR survey had been completed for the town of Redding, CT.

Following this disclosure on January 15, 2015; at approximately 10pm (2200 hours) a plane was observed flying a survey on the CAES (Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station) test sites in Redding, CT. (These same test sites had been baited prior to this survey ).

On January 19 - 21, 2015 White Buffalo engaged in the removal of deer from test areas in Redding CT; this occurred during the current 2015 Archery Season (please note comment at bottom relating to terms of CT DEEP issued permit). This also occurred prior to CAES receiving a report from the above mentioned FLIR survey to determine if population levels were above the target range of 10 dpsm for the study.

1. Why were the years 2 and 3 culls lowered from 75 to 25?

2. Why would there be such a high level of concern that it was possible to go below the 10-12 dpsm ?

How can you Scott Williams ridicule people for questioning numbers when YOUR ACTIONS demonstrate you question the numbers ?

Why would the CAES be so concerned, and act this way prior to receiving their IR report; are they that concerned what the FLIR report will indicate as to current deer population in Redding that they would break the rules of their - CT DEEP issued permit ? The CAES were the ones that stated -

" This winter will be the third and final round of deer removal with efforts focused in March 2015. As required by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection’s authorization, we will conduct an aerial survey of the deer population in targeted areas before removal efforts commence to avoid reducing densities below the target of 10-12 deer/square mile in these two approximate 1 square mile areas."

The sportsmen and residents of Connecticut deserve better than what the CT DEEP and CAES have shown them in the last several weeks. With the non-biased results of the privately funded FLIR they will be given an accurate measure as to gauge the future of wildlife in Connecticut; something the CT DEEP should have done years ago.

Then he proposed deer reduction in a 2 square mile area of Redding.

Can someone please check my math here.

2 square miles X 30 Deer per square miles = ?

I get 60, but I don't have a PhD.

But if there were 60 deer present why would Dr Scott Williams ask the DEEP for permission to kill 100?

And his proposal asked that the next year, he be allowed to kill 75 more.

And the 3rd year he be allowed to kill another 75.

This math stuff is hard, but I'll try to spell it out this way: 60 Deer - 100 Deer, - 75 Deer, -75 Deer = ???

Now I'm really confused.

Can someone explain to me how this ISN'T an attempt to eliminate the deer in those 2 test areas in Redding?

Conservation. I have partial information on the results of the FLIR survey I am not comfortable releasing just yet. I was just informed that the final report for our survey on 4 square miles should be done within 48 hours. I will gladly post the results when they become available.

Toonces. We will see the end results of each of the surveys. As I said, you get what you pay for.

Glen. This is where the misinformation stems from, you creating a timeline to suit your agenda. We are in 100% compliance with the DEEP Volunteer Authorization: we did a FLIR survey Jan 15 as required, the Authorization gives us permission to operate January-March, despite the archery season being open. The numbers were lowered from 75 to 25 after it was determined densities were half of DEEP’s estimate of 60/sm. It was you hunters who had the high levels of concern of densities being reduced too low, DEEP was responding to your concerns.

We did not break the terms of the DEEP Volunteer Authorization, we are in 100% compliance. I know you want us to have broken the terms to get the project canceled, but we have not.

Chas. Again, the 2008 flight was over large blocks of open space: Centennial lands and Devil’s Den, most of which are actively hunted. If our ITM project was to be conducted in large blocks of open space, we would have used that density estimate. But as we all know, the study is occurring in residential areas and we know deer densities are higher in these areas. This study is an attempt to see if we can get densities to 10-12 deer/sm on the two test areas and if such densities will result in a corresponding decrease in tick abundances in a non-insular setting.

Shawn. Your FLIR determination is correct. Additionally DEEP is going to be flying their permanent transects in Fairfield County this winter as they have in previous years that has nothing to do with our research areas from what I've been told. The 2 FLIR surveys were not completed by the same company and I am not sure of methodology or correction factors. I will post the report I get directly from the contractor.

Let me ask one more. If after the white buffalo poachers bring the deer numbers down and IF the tick numbers decline at let's say 10 deer PSM, Will 10 DPSM will be the goal statewide?

"This winter will be the third and final round of deer removal with efforts focused in March 2015. " Translation: We shot in January, that's apparently close enough to March.

"Arial deer surveys conducted by CAES and White Buffalo in 2008 over portions of Redding, Easton, and Weston, CT determined that deer densities are approximately 11.6 animals/km2 (30/ mi2) " Translation Except when we still want to use the 60 dpsm number and say a study conducted in 2008 occurred after 2010.

"I'm not a sorceror" Translation: He's got a PhD.

" If that is the case, and truly the case as you purport, your detection rate is going to be terrible" Translation: Maybe he really IS a sorcerer.

Great, that is a fine non response.

Can you at least clarify what process was used to select the FLIR provider the taxpayers all paid for? At least tell us many competitive bids was sought before a decision was made and the basis for the decision. Did you select the bidder with the highest bid because you assumed they were the best?

since lyme is transmitted by ticks that fed on mice, is mice control also being used in one of the target areas?

"The 3 year tick study and deer culling effort in the town of Redding was a huge success. Initial deer estimates of 60 deer per sq mile has been reduced to the goal of 10-12 deer per sq mile and will result in the reduction of lyme disease in the area."

The problem is there were never 60 deer per sq mile, not my words, but the good doctor's own admission.

We will have a new set of math problems to determine on this site,... how WB and the DEEP reduced the deer herd from 60 deer per Sq mile to 10-12 by killing just (insert the final kill number) in that area, so it's going to read something like:

60 x 2 miles = 120 deer, minus the 78 deer killed leaves 42 deer. Crap, that means there's still 21 deer per sq mile, so let me start with a lower initial deer per sq mile number of 30. Double crap, that doesn't work either because 60-78 = -18 deer per sq mile.

Toonces. Purchasing at the state level does not work that way. You think the Governor would require us to get competitive bids and then permit us to choose the highest? Seriously? $13,000 to cover 70 square miles is going to yield poor results. This has nothing to do with negotiating skills public or private.

CTCrow. WB is not poaching, this is DEEP authorized take by means other than hunting. I have no clue what the goal density will be statewide. But if the Town of Redding with all their energy and political support cannot get densities below 30 deer/sm, it absolutely cannot be accomplished statewide.

And yes, of course we are targeting mice as part of our treatments as they are the main reservoir for the pathogens the ticks obtain and pass to humans. There are 4, 1-square mile study areas each with a different treatment combination:

1. Control site. Nothing being done, just mouse, tick, and deer surveillance to track naturally occurring variations in abundances.

2. Mouse bait box and tick spray. Applying a naturally occurring soil-borne fungal spray that kills ticks and have distributed bait boxes that mice are attracted to, go in to get the bait, and in doing so receive an application of the active ingredient in Frontline. So mice remain alive, but ticks that feed on them die.

3. Mouse bait box, tick spray, and deer reduction. Self-explanatory.

4. Deer reduction only. Self-explanatory.

BBB. Funny stuff. I’ll be sure to get you a final report when it comes out. You guys have given me some great material to work with. Also, you have to remember what % of the populous hunts versus what % doesn't want tick borne diseases, hitting one with their mini-van, or eating their plantings. Hunters could be out there satisfying the demands of non-hunters, but instead, are advocating for more deer. It doesn't make logical sense when such a small percentage of people hunt.

there's no money in mice control. When it comes to politics,.....follow the money, then you'll understand why decisions are made and policy is formed.

There's was one statement that bothered me. (Well, just one I'm going to mention here).

The good doctor said something to the effect that the tick study and deer culling was a result of the people in the town complaining about the deer/tick problem, so they took action.

Well, aren't hunters, who are also tax paying citizens, also complaining about a deer problem? Shouldn't we be heard instead of being brushed off the sleeves of the DEEP?

You have no way of knowing that the results are going to be poor. I find your responses infuriating.

No competitive bids when spending public funds!!! That is insult to every tax payer in this country, and you don't care. Even if CT for some reason doesn't require it, isn't it a good idea???

As someone in the public sector you have a duty or should have a duty to the public to spend public funds wisely. We entrust you with our money. Don't you get that?

Don't you even think about that trust when you are asked to manage 1 million dollars of our money?

Your should be horrified that there is even a possibility you overspent and be looking at ways to make sure it doesn't happen again. If I spent taxpayer funds like you did and later found out maybe I could have done it for a lot cheaper, I would put aside my ego and at least consider the possibility I screwed up. When it comes to fiscal responsibiltiy you just don't care, which is really easy when your not spending your own money.

Are the deer numbers inflated? I don’t know and I hope not.

Instead of using WB poachers, give hunters a try. There are plenty of young (and old) hunters with no access to private property. Work with land owners to give it a try. I’m sure if you give landowners the choice between a bow hunter or a WB poacher with a scary black gun with a silencer, they’ll go for bow hunting.

This isn't like buying a 3/8" crescent wrench that cost x at one store, y at another, and z at another. We need a pilot experienced in these types of intensive aerial surveys and a high tech infrared camera that is oriented straight down not at a forward 45 degree angle like VisionAir. VisionAir is set up to give a cursory overview of a larger area, not a hard target count on small areas like we needed. Imagine all the interfering visual blockage from the boles of trees when flying overhead looking at a forward 45 degree angle. Now imagine looking straight down as you fly over like we all do in the chopper or with our FLIR. That interference is minimized as the bole of the tree occupies as much visual space as a trash can lid, improving detection of animals on the ground.

For your reference, $13,000 would pay for full coverage of about 22 square miles using our double observer helicopter count. So to say that you got 70 square miles for that price, yes, I'm skeptical.

Milton Friedman once said there's 4 ways to spend money. The worse scenario is the 4th way and it represents the governments view of spending.

1. spend your money on yourself - you're going to be careful how much you spend and that you get quality goods and services for your money.

2. spend your money on someone else - you're going to be careful how much you spend, but you don't care so much about the quality of the goods/services, like a gift for a friend.

3. spend someone else's money on yourself - you're going to make sure you get quality goods/services, but not care so much how much you spend.

4. spend someone else's money on someone else - (government) you don't care how much you spend or the quality of the goods and services. It doesn't impact your life at all, so why care???

No time won't tell.

It doesn't matter at this point whether you hired the best most cost effective FLIR provider on the planet, and the private guys hired a clown.

What matters is you have made it clear that fiscal responsibility was not a consideration in your decision making process. Without at least considering multiple bids, I am not even sure what your decison process was in choosing how to spend our money

Your not alone in this by the way and the FLIR thing is drop in the bucket. It is a good example of an epidemic problem in bureacracies, worse than your lyme disease epidemic in that it hurts a lot more people.

Its not bad enough we have these pork projects to begin with, the folks managing them should at least take their fiscal responsibility seriously.

No time won't tell.

It doesn't matter at this point whether you hired the best most cost effective FLIR provider on the planet, and the private guys hired a clown.

What matters is you have made it clear that fiscal responsibility was not a consideration in your decision making process. Without at least considering multiple bids, I am not even sure what your decison process was in choosing how to spend our money

Your not alone in this by the way and the FLIR thing is drop in the bucket. It is a good example of an epidemic problem in bureacracies, worse than your lyme disease epidemic in that it hurts a lot more people.

Its not bad enough we have these pork projects to begin with, the folks managing them should at least take their fiscal responsibility seriously.

Imagine how ludicrous it was, us wanting to know how many were present before you were allowed to kill 250 of them! (Especially since you were quite positive that there were 60 psm, or was it 30?)

What the hell were we thinking?

Why? Because we need to make a profit for our share holders. It's called sound business practices.

And why is Toonces discussing this topic? Because you Dr Williams made the point that money was not the issue, and a survey done for less money should not be considered because it didn't cost enough! If I used your logic at work I would have been fired my 2nd day on the job. It's very sad to hear these words from people working for this state.

BTW - when you say the hunters didn't pay all of the costs for the survey, that you received federal funding,....where did the feds get the money? Oh wait, it was from me, and Toonces, and Crow and Ace and all of the other tax payers on this site.

Like I said - spending someone else' money on someone else is the worst case scenario and this is a prime example.

And Malloy wouldn't care how much you spent, hell he allowed himself a 2nd inauguration on the tax payers dime.

It looks as if the state's fiduciary research may have been on par with the technological research.

Link provided below (among other things click on blue link and see how cost is less than using human observers in helicopter or airplane) to illustrate that this company has the capabilities of imaging from multiple angles, including straight down.

(See second paragraph after blue link "click here to see how economical FLIR is")

OK, so much for the 45-degree angle myth. On to slaying the next dragon.

So we have Chas demanding surveys and Toonces going off about government spending. . . My point exactly. . .

Toonces is going off about wasteful spending as any responsible taxpayer would. Perhaps we should put the question to him as to how he would feel about a survey with taxpayer's money if we could demonstrate value for service?

Lastly, I would like to address the apparent continued lack of understanding of some basic economic principles every businessman (as Bob demonstrates aptly above) grasps:

A businessman would understand the advantage of contracting with a vendor if they could present that vendor economies of scale; in this case by coordinating with the vendor it was determined that multiple flights were already scheduled in close proximity to the requested survey flights.

One cost of doing business is in transporting your goods or in this example, your service(s). When you present the business with a scenario in which those costs can be reduced due to the close proximity of multiple contracted flights you are in effect providing that business with economies of scale; they can reduce overhead and increase their profit margin.

Businesses do pass on savings when possible as most owners with solid business acumen recognize the value in repeat customers. Customers who feel they have gotten value tend to return for business and also tend to give referrals. Customers who feel they were not treated as a valued partner tend to take their business elsewhere next time.

As Bob very correctly pointed out when referencing the 4 ways money is spent Government spends money poorest of all the 4 ways. Vendors are tuned into this and unless an RFQ (request for quote) is sent out to multiple vendors (they would have a good idea this was done if there were lock-out specs (written to favor a particular vendor) or if the RFQ specifically mentioned there would be more than one bidder by the language contained, e.g. "all bids must be received by....", the single vendor will always seek top dollar for their product or service.

Business-savvy people contracted the private FLIR and got value for dollar, period.

They did not pay for an inferior product, an inferior method and they will most assuredly not get anything less than solid results.

And again, the sportsmen of CT deserve nothing less than that.

" Shawn. Your FLIR determination is correct. " Dr Williams is incorrect; There were ( 2 ) privately funded FLIR surveys done, one in Redding, CT and one in a neighboring town.

The Redding survey ( 31.5 square miles ) was done 6 days prior to the CAES survey and may show the ( 12 ) deer on CAES test site areas that were later removed by White Buffalo.

Conservation - The Redding FLIR will also show any concentrations of deer in the same baited CAES test areas. We will let the FLIR film and report tell the whole story.

1. Hunters have stated there are LESS deer that what the state has been saying 60 dpsm - the hunters were proven to be correct, numbers were restated to 30 dpsm.

2. Hunters would have removed deer in Redding if allowed to hunt at night and during an extended season saving the taxpayers of this state lots of money - state decided to spend money to do the job.

3. Hunters take exception to the lack of a financially responsible RFQ process for hiring a vendor to do the survey - state says unless you pay alot the survey it's not valid.

4. Hunters paid for their own survey - state discounts as not valid.

5. No decrease in tick numbers has been reported and lyme disease in the test area has increased.

6. The number of deer WB was supposed to remove was never acheived, increasing cost per deer removed.

Is there a group or association or sportsmans club connected to these private surveys or is it just a handful of people who decided to do this?

This is the last year of the tick survey and WB involvement. Once all the surveys (2 FLIR and 1 flyover) we should all be able to come to a good factual conclusion as to the dpsm in the town of Redding.

The thought process should be before we wipe out the deer we need to know how many....unless you dont care and just want them gone....

Glad I take my business elsewhere and hunt out of state...you just can't fix stupid

I am a commercial attorney and have spent the last 15 years negotiating both procurement and sales side contracts for fortune 500 and 100 companies.

You got it right. Doc is clueless.

That is ok though. If I were in his position I probably would have done the same thing. What really bothers me is his refusal to now consider his process may have been flawed. He seems to have this sense of entitlement to spend other peoples money however he sees fit. If nothing else I at least hope he considers this going forward. It doesn't seem like a lot to ask of him or anyone who is entrusted with public funding.

1. Hunters have stated there are LESS deer that what the state has been saying 60 dpsm - the hunters were proven to be correct, numbers were restated to 30 dpsm.

Yes, but this was years ago. Now they are saying that the town of Redding is at the goal of 10-12 deer/sm, which has been shown to be false. Some, including Airrow, claim there are a laughable 2 deer/square mile in Redding: http://patch.com/connecticut/weston-ct/survey-says--310--deer-in-redding-ct_a79d9669 Though posted anonymously, Glen leaves his signature ( 12 ) or ( 71 ) or ( 34 ) any time a digit appears in text. You can check his posts here too.

2. Hunters would have removed deer in Redding if allowed to hunt at night and during an extended season saving the taxpayers of this state lots of money - state decided to spend money to do the job.

Redding hunters have a 4.5 month hunting season, use of bait, and unlimited tags and still cannot get them below 30-35/sm. What more do they need? And it has been clearly demonstrated on this site that hunters don’t want densities taken that low and will resist efforts to do so. Additionally, these are not state funds. This is a federally funded study.

3. Hunters take exception to the lack of a financially responsible RFQ process for hiring a vendor to do the survey - state says unless you pay alot the survey it's not valid.

We paid the going rate for a survey we needed. Hunters got sold a bill of goods on a survey that is going to produce marginal results. It is not like there are a lot of companies to choose from that use FLIR to count deer in residential settings. There are a handful maybe. Again, it’s a service not a wrench we are purchasing.

4. Hunters paid for their own survey - state discounts as not valid.

You get what you pay for. See above.

5. No decrease in tick numbers has been reported and lyme disease in the test area has increased.

Yup, we have not released results yet, but we are seeing declines in ticks as the result of our treatments.

6. The number of deer WB was supposed to remove was never achieved, increasing cost per deer removed.

Just because we were permitted to take X number of deer does not mean that WB was required to take that many. And what is the hang up with cost/deer? They have a set contract. Ask Scot Sanford, he has all the contract information.

Bob I would advise you use more than this website to educate yourself on the topic. A lot of misinformation is floated here which is why I am here trying to explain the realities of the situation.

Shawn. Glen (Airrow) lives in Newtown. And there has been a similar push there to reduce deer densities, kind of like Redding Part II. So Glen is fired up and trying to put a stop to it now so he and the other hunters can attempt to maintain a high deer density. I would assume that some of the DEEP’s permanent transects include portions of Newtown, but I would have to confirm that. You can see the results of the 2014 aerial snow of count of deer in Redding here: http://www.ct.gov/caes/lib/caes/documents/publications/ticks/results_and_decription_of_the_redding_aerial_survey_2014.pdf. The hunters cannot believe that densities are this high which is why they hired a survey of their own this year. They think we are spending 1000s of dollars to lie to them and are making this stuff up.

Fletch. You can see the Fipronil information on the product we are using here: http://www.pestproducts.com/maxforce-tick-management.htm. Another aspect of this study is use less toxic compounds, or investigate ways limiting broadcast application. The bait box contains the synthetic compound within the plastic housing which limits exposure just to rodents that enter the box. There is even an aluminum metal shroud around it that anchors them to the ground such that raccoons cannot pull them apart and expose the chemical to the environment directly. If you have concerns or seek more information on this, I can put you in touch with someone better versed on the topic than I.

Toonces. Clearly I am clueless because I do not negotiate contracts for Fortune 100 and 500 companies like you do. I’m sure that comes across with all that I am posting here. We needed a service that was dictated by the terms of our Authorization, we found the company we needed to conduct the survey type we needed, and we paid them. Why did you not jump on the DEEP last year when they spent nearly $3000 to take Siburn (Rooster) up to conduct an aerial survey that mimicked the one we had done 2 weeks previous? Talk about wasted spending, and those were our license fees that paid for that one, not federal funds such as discussed here.

I am only hammering away at you because your here and your process and mindset is faulty. (doesn't matter by the way if your buying a widget or service provider).

Again I think your mindset on this is standard across the board in government. All I am saying is rethink it going forward. You can make a difference and be better than your peers. Your reluctance to even consider this is what bothers me.

I am only hammering away at you because your here and your process and mindset is faulty. (doesn't matter by the way if your buying a widget or service provider).

Again I think your mindset on this is standard across the board in government. All I am saying is rethink it going forward. You can make a difference and be better than your peers. Your reluctance to even consider this is what bothers me.

Toonces. If you must know, the state purchasing protocol is to get 3 bids and purchase the low bid. It's not that I am reluctant, that's just how it works. Ask anyone who works for the state.

"Again, it’s a service not a wrench we are purchasing" - I contract for services all the time, like snow removal and you'd be surprised at the wide range of quotes I receive. Not a valid reply.

"Additionally, these are not state funds. This is a federally funded study" - state funds come from my left pocket and the federal funds come from my right pocket, so what's your point?

"Lower tick count" - I'd love to hear how that count was done!!

Were you exempt from the requirement because it was federally funded and not state funded?

Also you seem to disagree with the bidding requirements, why? They are there for a good reason.

Again, I hate to harp on it, but its not your money. Even if you were exempt from the requirements, you could choose to get the best price possible, no? Your first responsibility ought to be the tax payers who have trusted you to spend our money wisely. It's not like we have much of a choice in the matter, but there is an element of trust there that should be taken very seriously.

In actuality this has not been demonstrated. As the attached link will document the 2 surveys encompassed 10 of Redding's 31.5 square miles. The only definitive statement you can make about deer density is within that surveyed area. The remaining 21.5 square miles for all intents and purposes remains subject to debate.

Given the known fact that deer yard up in the winter and adding to that fact that the sites were being baited it hardly qualifies as an earth-shattering revelation that counts would be higher in those settings. As a scientist I'm sure you've come across the term "inherent bias."

Some, including Airrow, claim there are a laughable 2 deer/square mile in Redding

I would advise a good perusal of the citation prior to posting it if your goal was to discredit the 2 dpsm claim. From your citation:

"The survey was done in the areas of Redding that the Ct. DEEP has not counted, due to low deer populations."

I would think that if the DEEP acknowledged low deer populations and made the decision not to survey those areas they had a good reason. Apparently they did; 2 good reasons per square mile.

Hunters got sold a bill of goods on a survey that is going to produce marginal results.

You seem to be expending an awful lot of time and energy positing a false meme. From my personal point of view if I honestly thought the person across the table from me was pinning their hopes on a flawed study I'd sit quietly by and wait for the inevitable crash and burn. Your continued attempts to pre-emptively discredit a study you have absolutely no knowledge of seems more indicative of the actions of someone who has a nagging suspicion that the outcome of that study will not favor their position.

Those actions really reflect the philosophy of Sun Tzu: "When you are too weak to defend, attack."

It is not like there are a lot of companies to choose from that use FLIR to count deer in residential settings.

Which is why Vision Air Reseach was contracted; they utilize the services of a certified wildlife biologist. I would have thought they would have been your first choice if accuracy was as dear to you as you seem to passionately argue here.

A lot of misinformation is floated here which is why I am here trying to explain the realities of the situation.

Your attempt to stake out a standing as resident expert is not aided by:

1. Claiming the privately funded survey must have flown a grid pattern due to the cost.

Proven to be False, the aerial transect method was flown.

2. Claiming that Vision Air Research offers and inferior service due to employing a camera fixed at 45 degree angle.

Proven to be False as shown by the link posted earlier in this thread, a source that revealed a multiplicity of camera angles can be utilized including pointing straight down.

Now those are 2 examples, chosen because they represent the most basic understanding of what the privately funded survey entailed. To be wrong at the most basic, fundamental level hardly supports any attempt to cast yourself as an authority on the subject. To continue to add post after post that attempts to discredit that study given your obvious ignorance of that study is analogous to the quote from Shakespeare:

"It is a tale told by an idiot; full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

http://forest.wisc.edu/sites/default/files/u4/Stormea2011.pdf

Would that be the same regard you've displayed for your counterpart?

"Hunters got sold a bill of goods on a survey that is going to produce marginal results."

I would think if you felt it necessary to post that professional respect should be accorded to you that you would not be so prolific in failing to grant the same respect to a peer.

Don't mistake me for someone that cares what the results of the FLIR will be. My only concern is what this silly "tick study" is costing.

I honestly don't care if you guys slaughter every deer in Redding. As far as I am concerned the hunters in zones 11 and 12 screwed the pooch years ago by acting like they were performing a public service by killing deer instead of acting like hunters, and now they are paying for it.

The only good thing that can come out of this is that hopefully the public will stop viewing hunters in that way and hunters will stop encouraging it.

The private sector no doubt was not hamstrung by having to pay pilots prevailing wage, using a minority or women owned business, posting a huge bond, carrying exhorbitant excess liability on their insurance, require a contract with a registered small business enterprise, doing 80 hours of administrative work for every 10 hours of work performed. I'm sure there are several that I have missed, but I've spent enough time on this. I'm only 60 hours into the administrative end of the 2 hour job I just performed for the state.

Maybe Dr Williams can explain this new form of counting deer ? How many deer per square mile is this and what is the correction factor ?

I had already seen and read this survey as well as several others. I agree that it (and the others) were a good read and source of information. As with any piece of scientific literature the data should first be put into context prior to making assumptions.

The between season variability for FLIR surveys is to be expected; as the technology is based upon thermal contrast (the difference in heat signatures between the target animal and the environment) it should not come as a surprise when the counts are greater in the winter than they are in the spring.

This revelation should be as shocking as, say, for example, my predicting that April will be warmer than January.

Comparing the snow count results, of the 5 sets counted the helicopter results were higher in 2 of the 5 sets (by 42.6% and 38.0%) while the FLIR results were higher in 3 of the 5 sets (by 17.2%, 13.4% and 47.2%).

Given that Dr. Williams bemoaned the cost of "being forced to conduct a FLIR by hunters" it is particularly telling to view the results of the no snow surveys (let's compare apples to apples please-especially if you wish to make comments such as "The reality is that these guys will support the survey method that produces the result they want, low detection rates."

In the no snow surveys FLIR signicantly outperformed the helicopter survey in 4 out of 4 surveys. (detection higher for FLIR by 69.9%, 72.1%, 91.3% and 74.2%).

Perhaps Dr. Williams can explain his "the sportsmen favor low detection rate surveys" comment given the conditions in Redding at the time of the privately-contracted FLIR and the results from the study above? I'm sure most of the readers here would pass a 3rd-grade mastery test in math and would not conclude that the FLIR results would be anything but vastly superior under the conditions that existed in CT when the state and sportsmen conducted their respective FLIR surveys.

Anything else is "junk science."

Aside from the fact that no one here has used those words (prior to your attempting to put them in anyone's mouth to deflect from the weakness of your arguments that is) the realities of the method, as highlighted in the cited reference above make a mockery of your attempt at ridicule.

If it's any consolation Dr. Williams, Don Quixote didn't fare much better in tilting at windmills....

As far as both the CT DEEP and the CAES estimates of deer per square mile in Redding, CT. being; 60, 40 or even 30 you are not even close. I am able to state that the current deer per square mile in Redding, CT., is in the single digits ( under 10 ).

Perhaps if you invested the kind of time you've put into the Bowsite as managing your study you wouldn't have wasted almost a million dollars of tax-payer money and the Redding deer herd would not be in the sad state it is in now.

I'm right with you.

Glen, Mike and others have presented some compelling information that makes me think there's more to this than what Dr Williams has presented on this site. I've said all along, both sides will slant the info to build their arguments, but the side that benefits (follow the money) is the side that has more to lose, so the truth from them is more slanted.

if what Mike and Glen say is true, that their survey shows the hair in the deer's ear, and Dr Williams' survey shows dots or blobs, which survey would you say is more accurate?

If the camera in Dr Williams' plane cost $5k and the camera in Glen's plane cost $125k, which one would say is more precise and accurate?

If the company Glen used grosses million+ per year in surveys, and the one Dr Williams' employed does $125k per year, which one would you say has more experience doing surveys?

If the kill figures for WB indicate that their success rate this year was FAR below previous years could it be due to far less deer in the survey area?

If payments to WB don't match the number of hours spent in the field as required by the contract, would you say there's something wrong?

I don't know the answers to these questions either, none of us do. But you can't discount the arguments from either side.

Dr Williams accused me of not having an original thought on this matter, but what I think he really wanted to say is, "You should just agree with me." I think both sides want that from us.

At some point all of this will come together and the truth will settle to the bottom for us all to see,....I sure hope.

I find it all very stimulating reading in any case:)

BTW - do hunt in Redding? If so, what do you see for deer?

Are you trying to find Q-tips in the deer's ear or just want to count an animal. Damn, maybe they can get us a buck to doe ratio while they are counting too...LOL. I'm not discounting anyone's side. I have no reason to do so nor any interest. I originally came here to clarify a few things and to find out things for myself. I haven't even addressed any of the players here doing most of the posting other than you and Dr. Williams to ask a few questions and make a few points.

Yes, I hunt Redding on Watershed for archery only, not private and not a lot, I mainly hunt the NW corner. I averaged about 1 deer a sit this year down there and took one deer this season. A far cry from what I used to see. But I did see 4 to 5 deer on my drive out of the area on each occasion. I'm not going to extrapolate what this means in terms of dsm, not correct to do so.

Here is my point, and I'll leave it at this. I am not in favor of sharpshooting, but is WB to blame for the decline in deer numbers in Redding and in surrounding towns. Watershed alone gets hit very hard with shotgun season. They issue 4 tags to each gun hunter and 2 waves go in there for A and B seasons. That's not including the surrounding private lands, tag allocations, replacement tags, baiting, road kills, higher coyote numbers, etc. All these have hit the deer hard down there and is the main reason for the major decline. I think most would agree with this. That is all I am saying.

If true it is interesting - reminds me of the "you get what you pay for" argument posited by the good Doctor.

yeah, I love a good discussion, argument, call it what you will. I think it gets your mind to work and that's never a bad thing.

I didn't mean you were discounting anyone's side, I was trying to describe my thought process, that's why I listed all of the questions that I have racing in my mind.

Toonces -

is it TRUE? I wish I knew what was true? I can only say that either Mike or Airrow posted some of the details and it seems they know both survey outfits and what kind of camera they use and the method used.

All I know this site is FREE and I'm getting what I paid for :)

I wonder what's happening in the field with Dr Williams and the tail that's on his vehicle while he's planting corn in Redding. Does he know it's not going to grow this time of the year?? :)

I don't want to get sucked back into this, but that factoid or falsoid struck me as interesting.

I did some research once I knew the types of cameras employed by both companies and the $5K figure can actually be between for the camera used by Davis Aviation if you want to do a lot of digging and can really haggle.

I posted a link to Vision Air Research for people to view first hand the equipment, experience and expertise and encouraged people to look at that rather than take my word for anything.

I posted factual information about the difference between IR and FLIR based on the former using medium-wave IR and the latter longer-wave IR and what that translates to in terms of sensitivity and resolution.

I posted the vastly superior number for resolution for the Vision Air camera in terms of pixels and if you want to get a real easy example play with the resolution on you computer monitor. Once you've done that imagine the impact of the lower resolution when your 1,500 feet above your target.

Business lookups (and there are many) will confirm the scopes of business done by both. You will also see Davis Aviation is listed as a provider of "aerial photography and map-making", not wildlife surveys. That will be on prominent display on the Vision Air Research.

Google searches of studies by both will show less than a half page for Davis Aviation and not all are related to whitetail deer; you will get the picture regarding Vision Air Research when you get to about the 7th or 8th page (and there are more) and all links are for whitetail deer surveys.

Vision Air has a certified wildlife biologist manning the camera, Davis Aviation has a very accomplished pilot without similar qualifications.

Scroll through images of whitetail deer surveys done by Davis Aviation and you'll see non-descript rectangular blobs that are labeled as deer; scroll through Vision Air Research survey photos and you can clearly tell the objects are deer without any zoom in the photos at 1,000 feet elevation. Look at the pictures where the wildlife biologist zooms in and you can count hairs in the deer's ears.

Look at everything I've posted here, it is well-worth the time as it will place in proper context who got the best value and the best results and who is blowing smoke.

Thanks for taking the time to wade through all this.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words so here is a comparison of pictures; first Davis Air and then in a post below Vision Air. You decide if the Vision Air money was well spent.....

Vision Air - I can see DEER and trees and I can tell there's more heat towards their heads than in other parts of their bodies. Absolutely no comparison.

First HARD fact presented for all of us to view rather than 2nd hand, spoon fed info.

Thanks Mike and Glen for your efforts.

please comment on the picture quality and tell the group WHY Davis Air was picked over Vision Air?

I've posted many links and excerpts stating that Vision Air has a gimbel-mounted FLIR camera that offers a multiplicity of angles, including straight down. I don't fault you for being misinformed; after all Scott spent the better part of two weeks trying to carpet-bomb Vision Air. The reason for that pre-emptive campaign should be very transparent now to all now that facts stand in stark reality to mere baseless slurs.

Scott,

Unless you are now going to state from your expertise as a certified wildlife biologist that deer should be expected to look differently depending on location your comment is patently absurd; the only thing in history to sink faster than your credibility was the Titanic; at least they had one hell of a great band playing while they went down.

Given the examples of picture quality I've seen and certainly posting the contrast in quality here leaves no room for doubt that Vision Air pictures are clearly deer. What Davis Air pictures are is open for debate but I don't know of anyone (other than someone with an "agenda") who would for a nanosecond stake their professional reputation that those dots are 100%, no doubt deer.

bb,

You hit the nail on the head. I guess Scott was right after all, we did get what we paid for. As Rod Stewart aptly said, "every picture tells a story."

From Jan 30th I posted this in response to this comment from Dr. Williams (post is in this thread):

"Hunters got sold a bill of goods on a survey that is going to produce marginal results."

You seem to be expending an awful lot of time and energy positing a false meme. From my personal point of view if I honestly thought the person across the table from me was pinning their hopes on a flawed study I'd sit quietly by and wait for the inevitable crash and burn. Your continued attempts to pre-emptively discredit a study you have absolutely no knowledge of seems more indicative of the actions of someone who has a nagging suspicion that the outcome of that study will not favor their position.

Whereas on Jan 14th (post is in this thread) I had posted this:

"When we as hunters are presented with deer densities that do not appear to be consistent with what we are seeing we have two options; to accept at face value these "estimates" and hope that they are indeed accurate, realizing the impact of them being inaccurate could be a negative impact on hunting opportunities that could extend over multiple years.

Option two is to take the initiative to ensure current management practices are still appropriate for the current, true status of the deer herd.

Personally I have always preferred to operate in the realm of the known as opposed to the unknown, especially given the ramifications involved.

Given those ramifications I am certainly willing to receive an "I told you so" from the CT DEEP; to be perfectly honest I'd really prefer to be proven wrong as it would mean we haven't reached the tipping point yet.

Again, in all honesty, I am concerned that the FLIR survey will show what many here have been very concerned about; that the estimated deer densities are well off the mark and we may be looking at successive seasons of fewer opportunities and the need to make some drastic changes to the current deer management system."

That's not me conveniently Monday-morning quarterbacking. That's me over a month ago hoping the FLIR would prove the CT DEEP right and me wrong. That feeling arose as I was much more concerned about the health of the deer herd than being right.

I hope this distinction is not lost on any who have followed these threads.

And now there is SILENCE.

Personally I am not willing to completely discount the results of either survey in favor of the other. I would just take an average of the two surveys and take that as the most accurate DPSM number.

But ... anyone worried about their reputations instead of the truth would never agree to such a thing.

Figure 1: ( 31.5 square miles ) A total of 234 deer were located in 102 groups. I delineated the two blocks requested over the area flown. The eastern most block ( 1 square mile ) had 6 groups and 12 deer while the western block ( 1 square mile ) had 5 groups and 11 deer.

Another good point and were this a normal setting I'd be curious as well. I'm not sure as to the exact cause, whether it's a combination of hunting, sharpshooting, baiting, any of the above or what.

I've seen a noticeable drop-off the past 3 seasons in the numbers in deer groups, especially while bowhunting in January. Periodically I will see a group of 2 mature does and 3 younger ones but most times it's single doe groups.

Again, thanks for adding to the discussion.