Bowsite.com

Redding CT-DEEP Betrays Hunters Trust

It has come to the sportsmen's attention that the State of CT DEEP has issued a permit and CAES have begun shooting at night in Redding in their continued effort to destroy the relatively small yet remaining deer herd. The final deer kill of the CAES Study was slated for February and March 2015 after the close of the archery deer season at the end of January. It was also promised by Rick Jacobson of The CT DEEP that an aerial survey would be done to insure the herd was not reduced below a level of 10 deer per square mile in the test areas. While it is believed the state did the required survey it was found that this was done over baited areas that will artificially inflate the deer counts in the test areas. The sportsmen self funded an FLIR survey in the hopes of establishing a starting point in a discussion with CT DEEP on proactive deer management. The Selectmen's office was aware of the sportsmen's efforts. If in fact Julia Pemberton was aware of the states intentions to commence shooting prior to evaluating the data from the surveys, It would appear that she is complicit in the states deception and subsequent abuse of wildlife in Redding. It has become apparent that CT DEEP and town officials have no interest in conservation of wildlife. DEEP and the Town officials have in effect spit in the face of the sportsmen that pay for licensing and have acted as stewards in Redding for many years. With deer populations dropping by approximately 75% in less than five years and Lyme cases increased by close to 62%, it will be hard for the state to explain their actions......unless they continue to manipulate their data.

It looks like they don't have too they just do what they want . Cant you put this in the town paper [if they have one ]for the people of the town to see ?? Maybe its time for the selectmen to go . Steve

The hunters and sportsmen of Connecticut, have lost their voice and backbone when it comes to professing what they love........preferring to speak of " Surveys, Sausage and Sunday hunting ".

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.

""The hunters and sportsmen of Connecticut, have lost their voice and backbone when it comes to professing what they love........preferring to speak of " Surveys, Sausage and Sunday hunting ""

REALLY?

I'm going to refrain from saying what i'm thinking because I don't have a backbone but if I did it would start with F and end with U. I take that as a personal attack.

http://forums.bowsite.com/tf/regional/thread.cfm?threadid=221513&MESSAGES=23&state=Ct

http://forums.bowsite.com/tf/regional/thread.cfm?threadid=221548&MESSAGES=3&state=Ct

http://forums.bowsite.com/tf/regional/thread.cfm?threadid=221414&MESSAGES=14&state=Ct

Just because you type nicer and know people, doesn't make your balls bigger.

Gentlemen, please take it down a notch. Everyone gets cranky at the end of the season including myself. However, that is no reason to stir conflict amongst ourselves. It is time to release the Kraken (if there is one) on DEEP and the state for their deliberate actions in Redding. Hard proof is needed to start the process. Does it exist? Signed letters and newspaper articles need to be produced and sent if our voice is to be heard at all. Organized peaceful protests can also be used as a tool in fighting this abuse.

Inflating DEEP's actions and pushing the issue to borderline insult just to induce hunter response to the matter at hand is not a good approach. We need to keep calm and stay with the facts as desperation is not our friend.

If anyone has facts backed by hard proof of this abuse then it needs to be released to the media immediately. I am willing to take a day off in order to participate in a peaceful demonstration. No one likes negative publicity and I believe the DEEP abides by this rule as well. Let us take the fight to them and not amongst the hunters.

airrow seems to think this forum is his personal sounding board for his Redding Agenda.

I don't even think I could find Redding on a map.

Not saying what is going on there is a good thing, but if the deer hunting is so bad it might be time to divert some of the time spent whining about it into finding some new more producting hunting ground.

Seems to me this is a resident issue and if they didn't want all the deer removed they would vote accordingly or be the the ones complaining if your hunting there land and not doing what they want that's your fault stop crying and move on.

toonces and bobhunt

don't you think that there's something about the Redding situation that should concern ALL hunters, not just bow hunters in Redding? The state is playing with the numbers so that they get the desired outcome,....killing more deer. Today it's a Redding issue, tomorrow it could be a toonces / bobhunt issue.

I just think it's a town agenda the people want there landscape plantings and gardens to survive and for years hunters could of brought the numbers down but some would rather try to shoot the elusive record book buck and not do there part in reducing the population .The areas I hunt are mostly state and a couple small pieces of private and we all know state is below what they want and the private I hunt is surrounded by dirt bags illegally baiting and shooting at every thing brown so those areas are well below 10 dpsm.

BBB,

First you seem to believe everying airrow is saying. From my my perspective he is no more or less reliable than the other clowns that were fear mongering about the Lyme Disease Apocolypse.

End of the day, if the local residents and local politicians of Redding don't want the deer killed, they wouldn't be getting killed. That is where it starts and that is where it can be most easily stopped.

Vote out the folks who want this to happen in Redding and it won't happen.

bobhunt and toonces,

you're correct, I can only base my opinion on what was presented on this site about baiting deer in the survey area to inflate the numbers, so what is fact and what is emotion is not known. Keep in mind that some of the people being criticized about the Redding situation are not elected, so voting doesn't correct the whole problem.

I have OTHER influences on my opinion concerning the DEE{ and they add some level of credibility to the statements made on this site, and one big one is my direct dealings with the DEEP concerning things like bag limits in the NW corner on state land, where I do all my hunting.

I tried to express concern about the deer numbers over the 46 years I've been hunting this state in that area and all of my arguements were immediately dismissed, so when I read something that says the state is manipulating numbers I say,..........again!!

And as far as people posting things on this site about topics that others don't like, I say "DON'T READ THEM." All of us should be allowed to discuss any topic that impacts hunting.

Last week I was provided with the CT DEEP 2014; Archery harvest results for the towns surrounding Redding, CT. The percentage differences that I have posted are the decrease`s from 2013 to 2014.

Bethel down - 16.9 %

Brookfield down - 35.0 %

Danbury down - 31.0 %

Easton down - 12.2 %

Monroe down - 32.8 %

Newtown down - 34.1 %

Ridgefield down - 27.5 %

Weston down - 42.6 %

Wilton down - 14.5 %

Great. These are numbers that should make most here very happy.

Most want hunters killing a lot less deer. Assuming those numbers are accurate that is exactly what is happening.

Amazing how people take the opinions of other people so personal. I think is great that people have differing opinions, and are passionate in their convictions. First amendment - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Thank god that we have the right to this....

What these numbers show is we have a big problem with all towns around Redding, CT. Redding is lost; but we can still save the surrounding towns by speaking out and letting our voices be heard. If we do nothing we are looking at a Redding scenario within approximately two years.

We need to demand that DEEP stop the unlimited doe tags and earn a buck programs; or take matters into our own hands and act accordingly ( let them walk ) and only take a surplus. We also need to demand that we go back to check station type check-in; there are to many flaws in the current system allowing for mismanagement and illegal activity. These are your deer and you need to safeguard their future.

The numbers don't show hunters are killing lots of deer, they show hunters killed less deer YOY. I think what most hunters want is a well managed deer herd that provides quality hunting for all.

Lets look at Weston, CT; in 2013 the harvest numbers were 61 deer, in 2014 the harvest numbers were 35 deer. This is a 42.6 percent decrease in harvest over a one year period. I am sure the hunter effort was similar from 2013 to 2014; there were just less deer to harvest in 2014. You need to look at the harvest counts as population indicators for the future.

BBB What you need to look at is the number harvested over a 5 year stretch in a given area relative to the actual population. This will give you a good indicator of what management efforts are required to achieve a set goal.

Example (extreme): If you hunt a property and start with 10 deer in a herd and you take all the does the first year (cause you can) and you are left with a few bucks and skippys in theory you have just wiped out the herd and lost reproductive capability. Now do this across a whole town and we get what we have in Redding. Yes there are pockets of deer left, but few in number and low in quality.

Example (ideal): If your goal is to have a quality herd of 6 deer. You will need to educate yourself about each of the animals in the herd and examine what the effect of taking a specific animal out of the mix will be. I think you can grasp the concept from here……...

Taking what you need is one thing but when it becomes an obsession or a "dick wag" to see who can get the most replacement tags it becomes destructive and takes quality opportunities away from the whole.

Unfortunately most hunters will not self manage hunting behaviors. This is why many of us are speaking up for change in policy and education that we can only hope will promote "quality deer management"

CT DEEP needs to adjust policies to reflect actual conditions. They need to stop manipulating data to allow needless destruction of this resource.

Conservation has been removed from the equation?

airrow,

Those numbers show no such thing. All they show is that hunters are killing less deer which is what we all seem to want no matter how you slice it.

If the deer population is decreasing, these numbers are all the better. It is a good thing that hunters are killing less deer with a decreasing population.

What would you prefer, a decreasing population and more deer being killed by hunters.

If you reduce tags the intended outcome is hunters killing less deer. So are you saying that if there were less tags to go around and the harvest humbers were decreased it would be a good thing, but the same amount tags being available and the harvest decreasing is a bad thing.

Unless you want hunters to kill more deer, how are these numbers bad? I don't understand.

You guys may be missing an important aspect of the numbers "taken".

Are the number of deer taken really down in those areas or, with this type of tagging situation, is the number of deer "reported", down.

Just adding another factor to the equation. Even with replacement tags and no need to not report, how many go unreported?

Will be interesting to see what the FLIR reports.

I'm going to over simplify, because it's what I do best :)

Opinion: The DEEP is NOT managing the deer herd as demonstrated by the tagging system as well as the number of tags allowed and the types of tags (doe) allowed. They also APPEAR to be manipulating the deer herd numbers to justify actions taken (WB) to kill more deer resulting in poor deer numbers.

NOW - As a hunter should we assume the DEEP is correct, or incorrect in their policies for deer management? If we believe they are incorrect then we need to self manage, just as Rooster pointed out. However, if they are correct, then hunters should be able to kill a deer for every tag handed out to manage the deer herd to optimal levels per the DEEP(I don't even want to argue what optimal means).

So if anyone argues that we need to self manage, then I believe they're saying the DEEP is not doing their job. Otherwise, kill away. I wouldn't kill away because I think they're wrong.

Brian,

If that is the case than the reported deer kill numbers are meaningless and have been for a while and we shouldn't draw any conclusions from them.

The irony of it all is it was hunters (not saying guys on Bowsite) who were their own demise for the future of hunting in FF county. WB did kill some but the tags and late season took its toll. Just out of curiosity who on here knows someone who took 4+ does in zone 11 or 12 in a year?

Maybe Sunday Hunting would help solve these problems and allow more time to Hunt

Spike78 - " Just out of curiosity who on here knows someone who took 4+ does in zone 11 or 12 in a year? "

I know of ( 8 ) individuals that took ( 4 ) + does in the Redding, CT and surrounding towns in zone 11. Four took ( 4 ), one took ( 5 ), one took ( 6 ) and one took ( 10 ). And our all time favorite " Lymefree " took ( 40 ) and counting. The total for these ( 8 ) individuals is ( 77 ) and counting with the archery season still open until the 31 of January. It may be time for the CT DEEP and sportsmen to consider changing the unlimited replacement doe tag and computer check in system.

Great point about the potential for under-reporting due to the new reporting system!

We cannot assume that a decrease in harvest numbers translates into a decreased threat to the viability of the deer herd.

Let's say Town A had 1,000 deer in 2013 and 300 were reported as taken. If 2014 showed a 20% decrease in harvest numbers that would only be a "good thing" if the ratio of take:supply were either identical or close enough where the variance was not statistically significant.

If the ratio was the same (or very close) that would reflect sound management practice; let's say though that in 2014 Town A had that 20% reduction in harvest numbers and that total was 240 deer. The ratio would be identical only if the available population was 800 deer. If this were the case the take would still be proportional to the population and one could fairly argue good stewardship (management if you prefer) was in place.

Let's say however that the actual 2014 census for Town A was only 700 deer. Now the 2014 harvest represents 34.2% of the available population (as opposed to 2013's 30%).

What we have in this scenario is a 4.2% increase in harvest when plotted as a percent of available stock. That available stock however has decreased by 30% from the prior year.

To be clear, I am not categorically stating the above scenario is factual; it is however at least theoretically possible.

Given this it then becomes critical that we have unquestionable accuracy in 2 metrics that we should have fairly good control over; one, the method of counting deer and two, the method of reporting deer taken.

We can no longer afford to place blind faith in the accuracy of deer estimates and the ethics of all hunters in a reporting system that is predicated upon trust. We need to go back to the tag system and I would not be opposed to checking all deer either.

Let's then compare (as soon as the numbers are available) what the privately contracted FLIR survey shows versus what the aerial (estimate) survey shows and have the facts subject to the naked light of truth.

If the counts are widely different and if the FLIR results show a significantly lower population than the aerial results we need to push for lower bag limits, reduction, if not elimination of replacement tags and "earn-a-buck" tags and we need to push NOW.

I've said it on another thread and I'll say it again on this one-I would love to be proven wrong in this case, truly I would. I would love to know the herd is in fine shape and is being well-managed.

I am very, very concerned though that when the evidence is in I won't be. If we hope to continue our own tradition, if we are to have hope of passing it on to our children and to theirs we cannot be spectators, we have to be participants.

The last comment was not directed at anyone here; many of you I know from personal experience have invested more of your own blood, sweat and tears into trying to preserve the resource and open up more opportunities (Sunday hunting) and deserve only my highest praise.

To those people you have my deepest respect and my highest admiration. The comment was directed at the percent of hunters who are content to let others do all the heavy lifting. Get off the couch, get off your duff and lend your efforts to those who have been paying your tab all these years.

I know I can get wound up; thanks for putting up with me on those occasions.

Best wishes to all for a happy, safe and blessed 2015.

Mike

I was going through the harvest figures on the DEEEP website under the deer management program link and saw that just with the extra tags 489 if i remember and 500 extra deer were taken in two consecutive seasons. Sounds like those figures for the % decrees per town is the result of fewer deer and not so much hunters deciding to shoot less. Here in MA, zone 3 abuts CT northwest corner and back in early 2000 used to be the highest deer kill in western MA and was THE place to go. Now the kill is down 50% and I hear hunters out there now barely even see tracks in the snow. This was 14 years ago and even with reduced tags now they still havent rebounded.

Mike,

I think you are one of the more intelectual guys on the board and I ussually agree with 95% of your stuff but can you make your posts shorther for those of us with ADD? ;-)

I like reading Mike's posts, and during these boring days of no live hunts it gives me something to do, so I say "WRITE ON!".

Crow - keep in mind it also keeps me from posting stuff!!

LOL BBB. READ ON!

I have to read Mike's threads in pieces because of interuptions.

Mike, keep posting long messages but type slower. I'm a slow reader.

Thanks

CT-In order to pay proper homage to you I am amending my 2015 New Year's resolutions to include making more of an effort to tye "Reader's Digest" version posts!

Hope you have a great 2015!

Does anyone think it is a coincidence that we did not have the online deer kill report by town this year? I was told it was because the webmaster retired, but other changes to the DEEP page have occurred. I would find it very hard to believe that they do not have that process all set to go from the previous year. All that probably needed to occur was to add the link to the main page and change 2013 to 2014 is some parameter file. Maybe they didn't want us to know how many deer were taken from particular zones.

No doubt there's always a nostalgic crowd that yearns for the days of "a deer behind every tree" in Zone 11 and wouldn't have minded if those times kept rolling on.

Fortunately, that crowd is a fraction of the whole and a non-factor in this ongoing stewardship discussion.

To be very clear, the folks leading the discussion about what is happening (in Redding in particular and in Zone 11 in general) aren't concerned over deer reduction per se, but what seems increasingly to be an indiscriminate approach that resembles extermination more than it does sound management.

While we can only speculate about statewide DEEP deer population objectives we do not have to as far as Redding; we have published documentation stating the target number is 10-12 dpsm.

This number is based upon a misapplication of science; taking successful outcomes regarding the control of lyme disease in insular settings (Mumford Cove, etc) and attempting to cast them as a valid option in non-insular settings where there is no evidence that such an approach would succeed, and in the face of experts who categorically state that the control of vector borne diseases in non-insular settings is a physical impossibility.

Even more troubling is the amount of peer-reviewed literature that shows far better success rates in combating lyme incidence that involve vector and agent, not deer control. This begs the obvious question of why, given this evidence is deer reduction being targeted?

Finally, the accuracy of the deer numbers must be unimpeachable and there are reasons for concern in this arena. For example an aerial survey of Redding was undertaken on Jan 24, 2014 and yielded a count of 34 dpsm. On Feb 11, 2014 an additional aerial survey was performed producting a count of 45 dpsm.

Is anyone else concerned that in a manner of 2 1/2 weeks the methodology used to base the number of tags on had a variance of 24.4%? If you contracted someone to build an addition for you how comfortable would you be with that person telling you they do great work 75.6% of the time?

We deserve better than that kind of "accuracy" folks, especially given the fact that sportsmen pony up for the tab (see attached link) and deserve sound wildlife management.

Hi Mike. A friend of mine told me of this post. You are mistaken. The official Jan 24, 2014 survey was 34 deer/sm and the Feb 11, 2014 unofficial survey using Chris Siburn (Rooster) as an inexperienced observer at DEEP's request came out at just over 30 deer/sm. Not sure where you got 45 deer/sm, but I would be curious to find out your non-Bowsite citation for that number. The results link, for your's and other's reference, is included here. Seems to me the "variance" is pretty close, despite using inexperienced observers. I am just trying to keep confusion on the topic to a minimum.

Dr. Williams: Let me refresh your memory . See attached letter.

Ah. Now I remember. Thanks Chris. I remember that that 1 square mile research area by Edith and Rick Jaccarino's house came out to 45 deer/sm ("in your area") but that the 3.8 total square miles you helped count from the helicopter averaged just over 30/sm. So seems clear to all here that Mike in CT is selectively plucking data out that suits his agenda by saying the aerial survey results of Feb 11 "was performed producting [sic] 45 dpsm." Based on factual evidence provided by you, it is clear that is part of the truth. Thank you for clarifying.

So seems clear to all here that Mike in CT is selectively plucking data out that suits his agenda

Now that's just priceless.

From your letter:

"The scientific literature states that deer densities of 10/square mile will see a corresponding decrease in deer tick abundance and associated tick-borne disease risk."

All of that information is true but the problem is that you are casting it as applicable to the residents of Redding when those results have been obtained only in insular settings such as Mumford Cove and Monhegan Island, ME to name a few.

That type of correlation has yet to be replicated in non-insular settings (such as Redding) as you well know, so why you would include that reference to a resident you are trying to persuade to remain in the study? Why not qualify the statement so they would be under no illusions as to it's meaning? In short, why not just level with them?

By the way I've only posted as "Mike in CT" since my arrival on the Bowsite in 1999. Never once under an assumed name, always right there in front of God and the whole world.

Odocoileus ring any bells?

But by all means, continue the deflection attempts.

Is that the property where you shot the deer from a vehicle in direct violation of the DEEP's rules for the study?

Is that also the same property where the owner reported you to the EnConn officer who investigated and showed him where you even shot deer off his property, again against the study protocols? I hear the report from that investigation made for some very interesting reading.

I believe that very same property owner is on record calling you and your so called study some pretty unflattering names.

That property? Yeah I thought so.

Interesting that you've starting your deer killing this year while the bow season is still open. I guess that you'll only need an hour or two to kill all the deer you need, since they're behind every tree and all right?

At least you registered using your real name this time.

Hi Mike. The fact is whether or not it is "priceless", you were caught cherry picking data to suit your agenda given the evidence provided to us by Chris Siburn. I'm not sure to what you are referring, but you are correct. The deer aspect of this study is trying to address whether or not deer removal only is a feasible tick control strategy because as of yet, positive results have only been achieved in sites of an insular nature. That's what makes this study unique. Additionally I am not sure what you are taking about as far as study participation. Can you please share with the group any factually incorrect statements from my letter Chris just provided? Much appreciated.

Chaz. I'm confused. Particularly why this participant did a complete 180 on White Buffalo. He was 100% on board to the point where he allowed them to store equipment at his house. Then all of a sudden, like 9 months after the fact, he goes on camera and files bogus charges against them that were ultimately cleared due to insufficient evidence. In other words, fabricated charges.

And I'm supposed to feel bad someone was calling me and my "so called study unflattering names"? What are we in, 5th grade? And our DEEP Volunteer Authorization is valid January-March to clarify. Not sure where the confusion is there. Seems pretty straightforward. I'm happy to answer any other questions regarding this project. But emotional attacks without basis will be handled accordingly.

Dr. Williams, is it not true that even if deer are removed from an areathat their will still be plenty of hosts in the form of small game, predators, and rodents? Here in MA in my hunting area of 10-15 dpsm I consistantly had at least 20 ticks on me after just a twenty minute walk back from my stand. I actually counted the amount of ticks on a deer I shot this year thinking with the amount of ticks it would be covered in them. I was surprised to see only 11 ticks on a large host. Seems the rest easily have found meals on other critters.

That's the question Spike. One researcher at the Cary Instutute in NY says just that, that in the absence of deer, ticks will find alternate hosts and will survive just fine. The majority of other researchers claim that when deer density decreases, tick density decreases too. But this has only been proven on islands or peninsulas such as Mumford Cove, Monhegan Island, etc. Never in an inland setting, which this study is trying to show. Except it has been proven on small plots using electric fencing to exclude deer.

And it is true too that ticks are the pathogen vectors and mice and other small rodents are the main reservoirs of those disease-causing pathogens.

No need to be confused Odoriferous Dr Williams, you can always ask that 5th grader to explain it to you. If you're still confused, ask him to use smaller words.

Perhaps that property owner "did a 180" because he realized that he was lied to, and played as a fool. And perhaps he didn't like being characterized as a liar himself.

Mr J, was upset that you, Scott Williams, broke the study rules AND broke the law. He was further upset that there was no accountability, and despite what law enforcement officials told him, nobody in a position of authority held the rule breaker responsible. I imagine there is a written copy of that report somewhere, have you not seen it?

"And our DEEP Volunteer Authorization is valid January-March to clarify." "I'm happy to answer any other questions regarding this project."

OK, I have a few:

Weren't we all present when Rick Jacobson said that no culling would be done during the hunting season?

And didn't he say also that in order to get the next year's culling permit you'd have to do a count and justify the numbers of deer you wanted to kill?

Was that done? Did he see the data?

And by the way, it's Chas, with an S, not a big deal really, but some researchers like precision, and getting the details correct. But then precision and accuracy were never your strong suit, were they?

Ahhhhh...the off-season. Got my popcorn. Munch munch.

Cha"s":

This is the Redding Police Report that was filed by Rick. Rick was not able to get a copy of the CT DEEP report that he filed with Law Enforcement as it spelled out the infractions in great detail. Both reports however contain the same general statements.

Chas, sorry my phone changed it to a z. My apologies. Rest assured we are 100% in compliance with the terms of the Volunteer Authorization. And I do have a copy of the EnCon report that was ultimately closed with no charges filed due to insufficient evidence. Jaccarino was plenty pleased with the operation until 6-9 months later when you guys caught his ear then he did the ultimate flip-flop and filed bogus charges at your suggestion that went nowhere, just like all the other bogus charges.

If I could read what Christain posted I would respond to it.

The fact is whether or not it is "priceless", you were caught cherry picking data to suit your agenda given the evidence provided to us by Chris Siburn.

For the purpose of clarity I draw upon multiple resources, only one of which led to the documentation Chris Siburn provided. For further clarity an "apples to apples" of the data is provided between the attached link and the attached picture. Both can be examined to show the 2 1/2 week disparity in numbers for the same area (Pheasant Ridge). If one uses the adjusted numbers (for the reasons the author explains, 23 dpsm) that disparity is just shy of 49%, if the non-adjusted numbers are used (38 dpsm) it is still almost 15%, hardly insignificant.

What's "priceless" is the implication that an agenda is driving my motives given the obvious mischaracterization in your letter regarding "the scientific literature."

I think most would find it reasonable to draw the conclusion that your wording to the lay person would at minimum strongly imply he should expect a similar outcome relative to the literature you reference.

Given that these results came from insular settings and Redding is not, most people might reasonably conclude that this wording is poorly chosen at best and deliberately misleading at worst.

I daresay many fair-minded people might wonder if there was an "agenda" driving such an obvious mischaracterization, particularly given that it comes from someone who should be well-acquainted with literature relative to that topic.

Perhaps you may now have a better understanding of my "Priceless" comment regarding your appearance of staking out the moral high ground in this case.

While you're pondering that moral dilemna perhaps you can also shed some light on some of the pertinent information from which I shall posit additional queries:

1. Was the deer cull portion of the study in fact arrived at in part due to the dpsm estimates from the CT DEEP from their 2009 aerial survey?

2. For clarity, was that survey taken with a 1 or 2 member survey team?

3. One point of interest from the Jan 2014 survey; the areas to which a correction factor of 0.6 was applied. Would you be so kind as to refer me (and anyone else interested) to the peer-reviewed literature citing that correction factor?

i had the feeling if there was enough bait left out the rats would eventualy show..lol

Scott, I have had enough of your shit!!!

I am again posting to make it clear that I am tired of you accusing me of lying with regard to your deceptive practices surrounding the study. Following is my post from last year that makes clear my unchanged position regarding this study. My statement of last year is following:

My name is Rick Jaccarino and I am a resident of Redding, CT. I have never posted on this site; but received a phone call that I was being called a liar in regard to White Buffalo killing deer illegally from my property in Redding, CT by Scott Williams. White buffalo employees shot a number of deer, sixteen from their truck parked on my property. The deer where all killed on Town of Redding, Ct property. I was not aware that this was illegal until it was brought to my attention at a meeting we had a Putnam Park in early 2014 with DEEP. I reported the illegal activity to the DEEP and they came out and investigated after repeated calls. I provided DEEP with a sworn statement and was told that I would hear back from them in a day or so and would get a copy of my statement. Never heard back from DEEP and was told that the case was closed. Through FOIA, I obtained a copy of the report and was surprised to find that my statement in regard to White Buffalo shooting from their truck had been removed from the report. I called DEEP and asked can I have a copy of my original sworn statement and was told NO ! I emailed their division and was again told NO and that was the end of it; I then asked if my lawyer could get a copy of my statement and was told NO. Scott Williams of the CAES is a liar and stated in the case that it never happened; he also stated that White Buffalo had baited the deer on my property which was also a lie. All baiting was done on Town of Redding property. What do I have to gain by making something up. I am a contractor by trade and know where my property line is. The whole tick study is nothing more than a scam to kill deer the way I see it now.

After not getting nowhere with the DEEP, I went to the Redding Police Department and filed charges against White Buffalo for shooting from their truck and killing deer on Town of Redding property. I was told they would investigate. Two days later I received a call from them and they informed me they were not going to do anything and that the DEEP had already looked into the situation and it is now closed. I was also informed that I could pickup a copy of the case report in a day or so. I have been waiting for a copy of the report for five months now.

This whole tick study thing seems to be very politically motivated to say the least. The papers will not print letters that I send in and will only print what they want us to think. Trying to get the truth out of the Redding Pilot is little more than wishful thinking.

Julia Pemberton our selectman has been complicit in this whole mess and I am looking forward voting her out of office come election time. As for Scott Williams maybe someone will finally realize what they have done down here in Redding and he will hopefully be looking for new employment.

Mike.

Deer surveys are a snapshot in time and deer move. So depending where deer are at any given time, densities can vary significantly hour to hour, day to day.

To answer your questions.

1. We used the DEEP 60 deer/sm estimate at the start of the project to determine how many needed to be removed to reach 10 deer/sm. If we are removing deer on 2 square miles and each have a presumed 60 deer on them, we need to remove 50 on each to reach goal. 50 + 50 = 100. And after surveys of our own we determined densities were lower than 60 and we removed 51 deer in year 1.

2. You know DEEP does single observer counts over large areas. Our double observer method attempts to count all deer in a given area and has a higher detection rate.

3. The survey you posted here and are referring to was actually the Feb 11, 2014 collaborative survey Rick Jacobson suggested we take up Chris Siburn to show him our methodology. The link you provided was to the Jan 24th official survey. At the end of the Feb 11 flight summary that was with Siburn, you will note I said something to the effect that these data are for demonstration purposes only and should be interpreted as such to avoid this very circumstance. The reason this is so is because Siburn was an inexperienced observer who helped count deer in all areas. Howard Kilpatrick is very experienced and counted 2 areas and Rick Jacobson counted 2 and also did not have very much experience. My technician was on all 4 surveys with Siburn and is very experienced with surveys of this type. If I recall, it was the Siburn and Jacobson combo that counted the Pheasant Ridge area.

So first Mike pokes holes in the study methodology, then an eye witness to the wrong doing shows up and fills us in on what he saw and who he reported it to. I guess it's not just Glen, Chris, and I who think this thing walks like a duck and quacks.

A good person admits their mistakes, pays the penalty, and changes their behavior in the future. Some seem incapable of humility, honesty or self reflection. Someday, perhaps soon, Those involved in this mess will be looking back on all this and wish they'd chosen a different path.

I wonder what people will find if they Google Dr Scott Williams, or White Buffalo, and what future potential clients, and employers will think about the way they've conducted themselves.

Oh well, some people are of the belief that there is no such thing as bad publicity.

Hey Scott'

One more thing that my help with your memory loss. Are you willing to call an officer of the law a liar too? Sworn Statement from Officer Godfrey (Wilton, CT Police Officer) my tenant at the time.

Chas. Clearly you disagree with the study. As do many hunters in the area. I'm not sure to what you are referring about my behavior, but it is the hunter behavior I have a problem with. Hunters who say they are all for deer reduction to save people from Lyme disease to improve their recreational hunting opportunity. But when people actually want to see results and effective deer reduction, hunters lie, trespass, press false charges, make false statements, make bogus claims in the local papers, intentionally report horribly erroneous deer densities, bully and intimidate cooperating private residents, etc. As a hunter myself who would like to see hunting opportunities expand for all, I think if I were to come up with a strategy to do so, my strategy would not include estranging the public and publicly advertising how selfish I was in wanting to see high deer densities for me.

Do you think that the behavior of local hunters in reponse to this project has hurt or helped their reputations locally? Personally, I think you have collectively drummed up more business for White Buffalo.

Deer surveys are a snapshot in time and deer move. So depending where deer are at any given time, densities can vary significantly hour to hour, day to day.

I would certainly concur with that statement given variances ranging from 11 to 49% for Pheasant Ridge.

Given that this variance is obviously known to you how do you reconcile the detemination of cull numbers (not to mention tag limits) based on such a highly variable methodology?

I take it you're at least passingly familiar with the expression "GIGO"?

you will note I said something to the effect that these data are for demonstration purposes only and should be interpreted as such to avoid this very circumstance. The reason this is so is because Siburn was an inexperienced observer who helped count deer in all areas.

Yes, and it is included in the image I attached earlier. That being said I found this passage of particular interest:

From page 7, paragraph 2 of the Feb 11, 2014 co-survey:

"The first flight that surveyed Drummer Lane and the Limekiln areas were reported to have a tailwind on the southerly transects which increased airspeed beyond what was desired, a higher than optimal altitude due to weight concerns, and an inexperienced spotter. Based on previous surveys of our control area (Drummer), we feel a 60% detection function would be appropriate for both areas.

Conditions improved and sight images were engrained for the second leg of the survey for John Read Road and Pheasant Ridge for which we assigned the 80% detection. It has been reported in the literature, confirmed through experience, and by counting populations of known abundance that 80% of deer are detected using this method with experienced observers.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here; in 2 areas you assinged a 60% correction factor (still waiting for that literature citation) due to among other factors "an inexperienced spotter", yet on the other 2 areas (including Pheasant Ridge) assigned the 80% correction factor and in fact, cited the literature which predicates that correction factor upon "experienced observers."

Perhaps more than a few reading this thread may be as concerned as I am over the mounting contradictions and the vagaries to which you seem unconcerned with when making decisions that impact a large swath of tax-paying bowhunters.

Dr. Williams: While you are here and we are on the topic of White Buffalo; Could you please provide the number of deer taken by White Buffalo in Redding in 2015. Also please include number taken from the corresponding test area.

Mike, those areas were flown in the morning and conditions were cold and windy. The pilot had trouble getting low enough and deer weren't moving. The second two areas, flown later, had less wind and things had warmed up and the pilot was able to get to 200 feet altitude and deer were properly responding to chopper presence. So for the purposes of this demonstration flight, I assumed that if 2 experienced observers see 80% of deer as referenced in the literature, a combination of experienced and inexperienced observers would detect 60%. Ask Rooster. He was on all flights and can confirm my statements. And as far as tax paying bow hunters, bring that up with Rick Jacobson. This flight was his idea and paid for by DEEP, specifically to show a Redding hunter both how we do the surveys and just how many deer are actually on the ground. Again, ask Rooster. He helped count them all, regardless of area.

Chris, I know that they are done and off to Minnesota or somewhere. They prefer to wait until submission of a final report to report numbers.

Scott, you mention you are a hunter and you want to "expand opportunities" for us. Most of the hunters here want less tags, better deer numbers and more quality hunting experiences in the woods. We would like to see the herd rebound from its known decrease over the last 8-10 years.

This could be one of the primary reasons most object to the high count numbers. We all know the herd has decreased in size, let's work together to bring it back.

BT. 8-10 years ago the herd was at an absolutely ridiculous, unsustainable density. And Joe public was getting angry for all the conflicts happening. The guys here can object to the high numbers all they want, but that is today's reality. We are not dealing with the same 60-70 deer/sm, now we are dealing with 30-40 deer/sm. Which is still an awful lot of deer, you just need to mix it up now and find different properties instead of sitting behind the same swingset every day. If you think DEEP or the CT public has any interest in bringing densities back to what they were for deer hunters, you are kidding yourself. Point is, there are plenty of deer still out there, they have just smartened up to the properties where hunting occurs. Hunters need to adjust, hunt smart, not educate animals, and knock on some more doors.

Scott, DEEP is actually trying to look at slowing the rate of decreasing deer numbers...hence the fawn study and reducing the doe kills in certain parts parts of the state. A reduction in tags statewide would certainly aid in a better management plan.

We're seeing the deer numbers continually fall each year. Now we all want to work towards a common goal of sound, stable management practices.

Dr. Williams,

Per your recommendation I have contacted Chris Siburn; it seems his recollection differs from yours and I will highlight the specific points of disagreement:

1. All flights were in the afternoon (he had been on a plane until approximately 11am and met the DEEP between 12:30-1:00pm). First flight consisted of pilot, observer, Kilpatrick and Siburn.

2. Limekiln area showed 12 deer, ground survey of Limekiln had shown 10 (but only on 0.63m). Interestingly 12 deer with a 0.8 (not 0.6)CF would be 15 dpsm. Correcting the ground count by dividing by .63 (to make it equivalent to 1.0m) would be 15.8 dpsm; not too bad on reproducibility.

3. Second flight substituted Jacobsen for Kilpatrick, Siburn noticed it appeared tha Jacobsen might be double-counting deer on run that included John Read Road and Pheasant Ridge. Latter is of particular interest as adjusted count with only experienced observers came out to a raw count of 18 and a densisty with CF of 23 dpsm.

2/11/2014 count of Pheasant Ridge had raw count of 36, CF count of 45 dpsm. If Mr. Siburn's observation was correct halving the count would produce a raw count of 18 with a CF count of 23 dpsm. I find that interesting as it would represent an exact duplication of the 1/24/2014 survey result.

Based on the comments I received from Chris Siburn (who was on the flights) the numbers he and others have been reporting seem to hold up very well. Conversely the numbers being reported by the CT DEEP seem subjective at best and upon close scrutiny don't appear to hold up as well.

I both accept and understand your point about variability in counting; to that point I must again bring up the fact that if we are to make sound management decisions we've got to improve significantly on the methodology.

Dr. Williams,

I am adding a second post not to respond to other posts in this thread but to address another area of concern.

Though we have disagreed on points expressed here every response you have made to me has been extremely professional and courteous. They have been exactly the types of responses I would expect from someone of your credentials and standing.

I am concerned about 2 posts under your name, the last one to Ace that begins "Chas." and then the response above to Bloodtrail that beings "BT".

It is painfully obvious to me that these 2 posts were written by someone other than yourself. From a composition standpoint they are full of painfully obvious grammatical and sentence structure errors. Far from being professional and courteous the tone in both is boorish and at times patronizing.

I note a great similarity between those 2 posts and the posts of someone who had much to say on this subject and in much the same manner months ago. This particular individual eventually through his conduct here was banned.

As a reciprocation of the courtesy you have dealt with me here I am refraining from alerting the editors. I will extend you the courtesy of allowing you to deal with the situation and see that it does not reoccur.

Thank-you.

I met with Dr. Kilpatrick about two weeks ago. I expressed my concerns with the ever decreasing deer herd.

We spoke about the fawn study and he said it is in place to help with managing the deer herd. Interestingly he said farmers who mow their fields are killing the most amount of fawns. Mature hardwoods and lack of available cover are causing does to fawn in grass fields and many fawns in the study are being run over. Bobcats and bears are the other main factors in killing.

He said if the study continues to show low fawn recruitment numbers, tags will be adjusted accordingly in these areas. Also in other areas of CT they have already cut back on doe tags....once again, he said the main focus on this was to let the does have fawns and repopulate these areas.

I asked if these measures would be in place for other areas in CT with the sharp decline of deer numbers....he said that there were no plans to correct the tags allotment or tagging system, but if needed they would adjust it if the deer population continues to slide downward.

Bottom line is we should let alot more does walk this season and seasons to come.

Mike, I stand corrected. Christain is correct. The flight was in the early afternoon as I recall they had hired an airplane to count deer from that morning. Aside from the timing, conditions remained the same as described. I'm not sure how Christain could deduce Rick was double counting, as it was each of their first survey of this type. Additionally, my technician was logging in the reported sightings into our moving map GPS ready tablet PC during the flight in real time. So he would be marking the locations of deer on the ground as they were seen and double counting would be a non-issue. All deer logged on all our flights are recorded and locations published in our reports on topo maps. So you can look for yourself and determine proximity of groups of animals to one another. Again, this was a demonstration flight as neither Rick nor Christain had any previous experience with a count of this type. As a result, I think the results of this flight should be used for demonstration purposes only, as previously stated, though seems you are willing to keep pushing the issue here.

And Mike, I've no clue to what you are referring in your second post. So I'm gonna let it go. But are you suggesting I have multiple personalities already on day 2 of posting here? I've noticed this accusatory nature of your's from past posts of yours. Seems out of the blue. . .

Though, with all your intense scrutiny of deer census techniques, I am super curious to see the results of your FLIR survey. 32 square miles of coverage for $13k is a total bargain!! I hope you are not disappointed with the results.

Dr Williams,

are you involved with deer management in the NW corner of the state, or just the SW corner? I called the DEEP twice and I was told about the fawn mortality survey, but when I asked about reducing tags in that area I was told there were plenty of deer on state land.

I've hunted that area of the state all of my 46 years as a bow hunter and the numbers have been reduced dramatically. Does the state have any deer herd numbers for the state land in that area that you could refer me to??

I also appreciate your comments on this site. I hate 2nd hand information, and facts always work better when forming an opinion.

Hi Bob. Thank you for the kind words. I am a researcher not a manager. I deal mostly with overabundant deer in residential settings. So I have absolutely no say on tag allotment. I do know that deer abundance is lower in the NW corner and the DEEP is trying to figure out why with the fawn study. It's probably a combo of predation and your remaining "big woods." Where you see lots of people and fragmented landscapes, you tend to see lots of deer. This is not necessarily the case up there in the southern Berkshires. The guys up there like yourself are truly deer hunters who are lucky and deserved to harvest one animal a season. Up there, any animal taken is a trophy as compared to the Zone 11 + 12 mentality.

Dr. Williams,

Welcome back. I missed you. Where is your compadre?Thanks for waiting until the season was over.

Mr. Williams, The Redding, CT. FLIR survey numbers came in on 2/15/15. The results of the survey will be released in approximately one week. I can release some of the information enclosed in the final report; both the Pheasant Ridge and White Birch test sites had 11 deer and 12 deer total. By White Buffalo taking an additional 11 deer out of the two test sites you have essentially flushed a three year ( $985,000 ) CDC ITM study down the drain !

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.

Glen, when will you show all of us the VisionAir report?

I think it is time for the CAES to provide their IR tape claiming 47 + 4 and 44 + 1 deer per square mile in the two test site areas for independent survey analysis; after all it is being paid for with our public funds.

Mr. Williams, Please let me know when you will be sending the IR tape - [email protected], I can also have someone pickup if necessary. Please let me know so that I can make arrangements and schedule to have the tape analyzed by two different companies which I will pay for. If you prefer to send the IR tape to the company`s that will do the analysis I will provide you with that information. I am more than happy to share the results with you when they become available. Our FLIR survey results of Redding, CT will be posted on 2/23/15.

Glen. If this is a FOIA request, I would ask that you make the request through the proper channels as Sanford has rather than on Bowsite. You and anyone else are welcome to review our IR data. And I am sure that the report from your private companies will be as objective and unbiased as you have been here on this forum. Sanford knows the contact person.

Redding, CT. Deer Survey Results for - 2015

Register here to reply to this topic