In 2014 the CAES had also baited their test areas for several months prior to doing the DEEP required aerial survey; This action also likely artificially inflated the deer count in the test areas.
With $32,507 on the line for 2015; It appears that the CAES and CT DEEP are again attempting to artificially inflate the deer numbers to sign off on the White Buffalo, Inc. permit for this year. Remember in 2014 when 10 deer magically became 45 deer when money was on the table.
This would make the White Birch Test Area 1.6 square miles in size.
CAES statement - " 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."
So; if Scott Williams is so concerned with being careful about " avoiding reducing densities below the target of 10-12 deer / square mile "; why is the CAES ( Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station ) baiting the test areas prior to the mandatory DEEP aerial survey ?
White Birch Road test site was increased .6 mile westerly, outside of the original proposed 1 square mile test area = 1.6 square miles @ 12 deer per square mile is 19.2 deer per square mile. The pheasant Ridge test site is now 1.2 square mile @ 12 deer per square mile is 14.4 deer per square mile.
Steve; You are right.....Baiting at this time of the year can easily bring deer in from 1/2 - 1 mile out.
Pheasant Ridge test site is now 1.2 square miles @ 12 deer per square mile is 14.4 deer per square mile. There would have to be more than 14.4 deer in the test site for any additional shooting.
What the CAES ( Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station ) has done is use " flexible " test area borders on a CDC ITM, study. With their test areas now totaling 2.8 square miles; the CAES has increased their two 1 square mile test areas in Redding, CT by 40% .....and they call this science. This represents little more than wildlife mismanagement for money.
The CAES stated ( in their original proposal - 2012 ) that there were approximately 30 + deer per square mile in the two 1 one square mile test sites; which would = 60 + deer for the two test sites and they needed to shoot 36-40 deer to get 10-12 deer per square mile.
Why did the CAES ask for a permit to shoot 250 deer in these two test sites ?
Your second question is; why did the CT DEEP sign off on the 250 deer cull permit on ( two 1 square mile test areas ) for the CAES and their sub contractor, White Buffalo; when they only needed to take 36-40 deer ?
airrow's Link
I can understand the sentiment given the amount of time devoted to this topic. Some believe the deer herd situation is approaching a crisis.
To accept for a moment there might be some truth to this it's like we're being hit with an invader trying to establish a beach head. If we don't throw them back into the ocean they will spread out like locusts and it's game over.
I think the persistance merely reflects the gravity of the situation.
I'm in the middle on this one, because when I took the hunting class about five years ago, one of the things the instructor talked about was having too many deer per square mile and the devastating effects it can have on the ecosystem. So, I know this scenario can become a reality in certain parts of the state. At the same time, I have to respect the fact that you guys, as fellow hunters also have some knowledge concerning the health of the herd. And most of you feel that the herd is in decline, so I can understand the passion behind the argument. What bothers me is the fact that some guys don't want to compromise, and in life, at home, at work and pretty much in all areas of our lives, we have to compromise in order to achieve working harmony and relative peace. I just feel we need to let our voices be heard, without a doubt, but we also need to be willing to give the other side of the argument a chance to get some of what they want also.
I don't want to point fingers or make enemies, we have enough of those outside of the hunting community. You had very valid points in your debate with Dr. Williams and he also made some very valid points, I just think as hunters, we have to find some middle ground and work together.
What many of us are concerned with is the undeniable trend that many in power are still painting the picture that the herd needs additional thinning.
The problem is not with DEEP, or DOC, the problem is with hunters and your comment regarding what they are teaching in the bowhunters class is sympton of that.
Why would they teach about deer overpopulation in a hunting class? Hunting is not about managing deer, it's about hunting deer. Deer overpopulation irrelevant to hunting or hunter safety.
I don't see a problem with letting new hunters know that there are other parts of being a hunter then just killing a deer (animal). Managing the resource for future generation and the long term health of hunting is a critical part of educating new hunters.
I think calling the class "Hunter Safety" is not correct, I think calling it hunter education is a more accurate depiction of what the class is all about.
I know one of the guys on the site is, or was an instructor, so I'd love to hear what he has to say about the class and what is discussed these days.
Thanks again for the feedback! I think a few things got lost among the weeds in some of the threads, among them that anyone questions the numbers the CT DEEP obtains on their aerial transect surveys.
Those numbers are not in dispute; the problem arises when the DEEP tries to takes numbers from transects over known wintering areas that congregrate deer and then project them out as a population for an entire town. When the transect may cover only 10% of a town, the reality is that's the only "population" that is known; the other 90% is pure guesswork.
Let me give an example; let's say the town you live in has 20 churches and the smallest holds 50 people and the largest holds 500. One Sunday I walk into the largest church, count heads and see there's 425 people in attendance.
The next day you see an article in the paper that states a survey was conducted and every church in your town has 425 people in it every Sunday.
That's what the CT DEEP is doing with our deer herd; sampling a fraction and making that fraction out to be the whole. That is a recipe for disaster in wildlife management and we're seeing those chickens come home to roost in places like Redding, Newtown and surrounding towns.
People like Airrow who have 30 or more years of hunting down there knew something was out of whack and tried to talk to the DEEP and others. Instead of being listened to they were laughed at. Thats why private money was spent on the FLIR and the numbers showed that the hunters were right on the money on the deer numbers.
I agree with you that there doesn't need to be a "my way or the highway" mentality; we should try to find a middle ground. The key to that strategy is that both sides have to be willing to acknowledge points made by the other. Right now one side isn't willing to concede anything, even when it's obvious the emperor has no clothes.
Personally, I don't know how to crack that nut open...
I think Dr Williams conceded a lot, like the entire argument. Why did he leave the site when faced with evidence contradicting his statements that he presented as FACT? I find that a telling piece of information to this whole discussion.
I concede that I have a bias against the DEEP and CAES units because they DON'T listen to the hunting community and dismiss any concerns we have as not being scientific. One only needs to Google - top 10 scientific mistakes to discover that even "scientists" make many mistakes.
As the old saying goes "The people that think they have all the answers just don't know all of the questions"
The problem is that deer management is a political issue, not a hunting issue. Look no farther than this board and you will see widely divergent opinions from hunters on the relationship between hunting, the state, and game management and what is good and bad management.
Why purpose does it serve to be part of state mandated curriculum? Doesn't it stand to reason that the state's vision of proper game management and hunting's relationship with that vision will be what is taught (or indoctrinated) into new hunters?
The problem is that deer management is a political issue, not a hunting issue. Look no farther than this board and you will see widely divergent opinions from hunters on the relationship between hunting, the state, and game management and what is good and bad management.
Why purpose does it serve to be part of state mandated curriculum? Doesn't it stand to reason that the state's vision of proper game management and hunting's relationship with that vision will be what is taught (or indoctrinated) into new hunters?
The people teaching these classes are volunteers, not paid state workers, and most, if not all are hunters like you and me. Do they have an outline handed to them from the state to cover,...not sure? Would love to know the answer to that.
If the state says hunting is a game management tool, then that's what THEY will present to the public. When asked why do you hunt, I talk about everything except game management,....not because I believe it's not one of the tools for game management, but because it's the last thing I consider since I only killed one deer in 16 years.
I get what you're saying and I agree that the way we present our sport to others can make a difference, but it's kind of like dropping an once of red dye in the ocean and then telling people the ocean is red,....just not enough there to change people's mind.
I have to say you have a very unique way of thinking of things,....makes me think.
Go back and read the transcripts of the Sunday hunting hearings last year. The lack of a line between hunting and game management is what derailed a perfectly good Sunday hunting bill to a neutered mess that we see today.
The anti's recognize that hunters have bought into the hunting/management thing, and they use it against us. Today it's Sunday hunting. Tommorrow hunting could be replaced by White Buffalo because they can manage deer more effeciantly than we can. Better we severe the relationship between hunting and management than try to maintain it.
I have read of instances where the herd has been hunted down to alarming numbers, but I think that happened out in the midwest. So, I know that it can happen, as to whether or not it's happening here, I'll leave that up to you guys who've been hunting a lot longer than me. Five years in the game doesn't qualify me to offer up an experienced opinion on the subject matter. I know some individuals who work for the state may have their own agenda, but I personally don't think that's the case with Dr.Williams.
Toonces, while their is some truth to your post about what the state may want in regards to hunter education, I wholeheartedly disagree that these instructors are putting out an agenda that indoctrinates students into a certain way of thinking, at least in that respect. If we as humans overpopulate a given area, we'll deplete the resources in that area, same principle applies to wildlife, wouldn't you agree. There is no political bias in that, more like a fact of life.
I don't think that was the point Toonces was making. He did elude to game management being discussed at safety courses, but I think he was more concerned with the issue below.
If we present ourselves as game management tools, and nothing else, then the state and the general public could have an easy time of throwing us out of the game management arena if we don't do what they want.
If, however, we say hunting is just a great, clean, healthy, historical, past time then it would be much harder to argue against that kind of stance. We need to present the best arguement to maintain our hunting rights, and not paint ourselves into the corner by saying we're here only to manage the deer population.
Toonces - how'd I do?
CtoC,
Your not wrong about overpopulation being an issue and a proper one for a wildlife management of biology class, but why is it an issue suitable for a state run hunting education class?
The reasons are in my view (1) the State feels like it hunting as an activity needs to be justified in some way, whereas other activities like golf or bird watching for example, don't need to be justified; (2)the state's justification for hunting is game management; (3) the state want's hunters to be on board with and be active participants in its game management agenda.
From a hunters perspective this is all wrong or should be all wrong most egregiously with number 1. Hunting does not need to be "justified" in any way. For the state to buy into this idea at all and to teach it to new hunters, only shows that the our friendship with the state is one of temporary convenience only.
