To see an airplane stop on a dime and hover for 2-3 seconds; I thought only helicopters could do that. I also enjoyed seeing the plane fly side-ways, back-and-forth and even go into reverse a few times. I marveled at how with its air speed dropping from 82 knots to 56 knots the IR camera footage actually sped up while the plane slowed down. What a show!
Now for the bad news; there are several problems with the video and I’ll list them here:
1. There are 2 sections of video for Pheasant Ridge; Video #1 has a running time of 27 minutes, 12 seconds while Video #2 has a running time of 23 minute and 29 seconds. Unfortunately the play time for the videos does not match these times despite the fact that the run time is synchronized to the second. For Video #1 the IR camera recorder shows a filming time of 27 minutes, 12 seconds while the video play time is only 14 minutes, 12 seconds. On Video #2 the IR camera recorder shows a filming time of 23 minutes, 29 seconds while the video play time is 9 minutes 33 seconds. It appears the video may have been edited.
2. There are indications of dots (deer?) potentially being counted more than once.
a. A group of 9 dots appears on Video #1 at 2031:08.769 with GPS coordinates of 4119.890N, 07321.293W and can be described as appearing in the shape of a question mark.
b. A group of 9 dots appears on Video #1 at 2033:03.434 with GPS coordinates of 4120.188N, 07321.466W and has the same shape. Two things stand out; as the GPS coordinates are in apparently close proximity and allowing for the movement of browsing deer over a few minutes time it certainly becomes possible that they could be the same group of 9 dots. A screen shot of both with the second being overlaid over the first has the dots line up almost exactly.
c. A group of 4 dots appears on Video #1 at 2040:04.257 with GPS coordinates of 4120.650N, 07322.105W
d. A group of 4 dots appears on Video #2 at 2057:08.130 with GPS coordinates of 4120.608N, 07322.003W
e. A group of 4 dots appears on Video #2 at 2059:48.618 with GPS coordinates of 4120.608N, 07322.136W (these are the only dots I knew to be deer as they can be seen running away on film.)
f. A group of 4 dots appears on Video #2 at 2102:32.897 with GPS coordinates of 4120.597N, 07322.496W
3. The proximity of the first 2 groups was telling, the shape overlap seems to clinch it. The groups of 4 appear to be near enough to have been counted multiple times (given the proximity of the GPS coordinates). FYI, while in the Marine Corps I became quite proficient at navigation by compass, including learning how to orient a map with a compass and then plot a course to a location by map/GPS coordinates. This is why I have no doubt there could have been multiple counts of the same group of dots.
Vision Air’s count of Pheasant Ridge was 12 deer. After my review of the Davis Aviation IR survey and counting what I feel certain to be distinct groups of dots I arrived at a count of 13 dots (deer?)
Regarding the CAES aerial survey of March 3rd; I give it absolutely zero credence. Why? Given what I’ve seen on the Davis Aviation IR survey footage I could stop at that. Add to that the fact that the IR Survey done by Davis Aviation was reported as an FLIR survey by the CAES to the Director of the CT DEEP; not just once, but twice (first by email then by letter) I cannot ascribe any validity to any work performed by anyone who would willfully lie to their superiors.
Additionally, my review of the Davis Aviation IR survey revealed that the pilot may not have flown strictly transects over Pheasant Ridge but also flown repeatedly over the periphery of the area (which appears to be confirmed by the proximity of the GPS coordinates with dots), an area known to have been heavily baited prior to the CAES IR survey. This method that may have favored multiple counts of the same deer is how you have the CAES signing off on a final report that states there are “47 definite deer and 4 possible deer within the study area” when 13 is most likely the true number, a number that the Vision Air Research FLIR survey certainly appears to have substantiated with fact (and deer, not dots).
If anyone has any NEW questions I will be happy to answer them. What I will not do is go over the same ground nor waste time on anyone who feels compelled to try and cover the collective backsides of the CAES and the CT DEEP. That ship has sailed and it is time to escalate this matter to the next level.
Thanks for spending your time to provide us with this info. Great job!
I also find it odd that shawn/scott hides behind a false ID to discuss things on this site after being proven wrong as Dr Williams.
Bob...I don't know what to tell you...I've been a member here since 2005 and I've never met Scott Williams
You wasted your time. You don't have a clue about what you are commenting on. Your ignorance of GPS, geo-coordinates, aircraft operation and movement, the play and pause button on a DVR, flight-lines/transects, deer signatures, and infrared in general is staggering. I'll leave the hunting to you if you leave the counting to the expert: me. I've seen and counted more deer than any human, alive or dead. I've hunted man and beast from the air for more than 35 years on four continents with every conceivable type of equipment with embarrassingly successful results. If you think the numbers of deer are anywhere near what you've indicated above, you have your head up your fourth point of contact. My equipment and techniques are superior to any other person's attempting to count deer and my experience is greater than all other deer counters combined. You and/or your colleagues received a rushed and flawed count from a flawed technique with low-grade equipment--flown partially during daylight and at the worst possible time after dark for deer counts.
I have more satisfied and repeat clients over more years than you can imagine--unlike your dilettante. My techniques have been studied, evaluated, approved and used by multiple Ph.D.'s and a small army of other wildlife professionals scattered among federal, state and local governments, the USGS, the NWTF, Audubon Society, universities, game farm operators, private foundations and a raft of others for more than 20 years--with multiple repeat clients going back 17 years. Ask your provider if they have even had a repeat client...normally they are fed up with the flawed results after the first try. How did your analysis of their video come out? Your attempt to evaluate my imagery is amateurish and misguided in the extreme. Perhaps you should have spent the time working on your hunting skills, particularly if you and your colleagues are finding it difficult to find deer in the Redding area. There are more than forty per square mile in that vicinity. Drop a line if you need some tips on where to hunt because I am the guy that knows where they are...and maybe you do too, now that you've had a look at my maps.
Semper Fi, Larry Davis MOS 7565
As one of the concerned citizens behind the privately-contracted FLIR survey of Redding, CT I feel I need to respond to some of your statements here as well as to some recent statements you made to Scot Sanford on the phone.
I would like to begin by stating that what I have had to review is a copy of your film made by Scott Williams; FYI one copy he presented, clearly labeled as survey film of the two study areas was blank. I think you might want to speak with him about how he handles making of copies of your survey films in the future.
I do not understand how you can assert that someone stating that duplicate counting may have occurred shows ignorance when on page 3 of your report to the CAES in your Q&A section you state “I recognize specific deer and groups of deer as I pass them a second and sometimes third time.”
When you state that Vision Air survey occurred during “the worst time of night to fly” are you aware of the literature that references issues with reflected radiation clearly indicate that this effect appears in the low-range IR and not the high-range IR that Vision Air’s equipment operates in? FYI, the conditions during the Vision Air flight were described as “perfect”.
With regard to your comments about the Vision Air survey being a “a rushed and flawed count from a flawed technique with low-grade equipment” I have a few points to make. First, the final results of that survey took just over 5 weeks to compile and present. I doubt you’d find many people who would label that process as “rushed”. Second, in reviewing your report I note that on the first page you report a flight time of 20:20 to 3:15, just under 7 hours. On page 3 you state “Generally for each hour of tape, three or more hours of analysis and reporting are required to complete the count.” At a minimum this would require 21 hours of review on your part yet Scott Williams was able to obtain and forward a copy of your report approximately 11 hours later. If you took 10 hours less than your stated minimum I would call THAT a “rushed” study and would feel you increased the likelihood of it being a “flawed result”.
Regarding your analysis of the equipment used by Vision Air; I do not think you can represent yourself as an authority when you are uniformed as to the equipment being used. In the phone conversation I mentioned you referred to the digital camera used by Vision Air as “a 5 megapixel camera” and stated that “digital cameras are 8 megapixels.” FYI, digital cameras can begin at 1 megapixel and the digital camera used by Vision Air is actually 36.2 megapixels. I have researched the respective costs of the system you use compared to the one used by Vision Air and again you are not even remotely in the ballpark in terms of technical specifications or price.
Regarding your comments about repeat business; Vision Air has had 17 government contracts since 2002, some of those being multi-year awards. I have no doubt any reasonable person would conclude on that basis alone they have had no shortage of repeat business. Beyond that however they have had multiple contracts with states such as Delaware and Pennsylvania; as to the level of satisfaction let me provide you with a few testimonials:
“Vision Air Research is the leader in the application of infrared imagery for wildlife monitoring. Their work in numerous types of settings from remote wildlands to major cities has demonstrated the adaptability and effectiveness of this technology. For remotely-sensing populations of small to large animals, monitoring with infrared has numerous advantages for generating reliable surveys.” (Jonathan Hauffler, PhD., CWB, Past President, The Wildlife Society, Executive Director Ecosystem Management Resource Institute, Seely, Lake MT 59868)
“During my tenure as the wildlife biologist for the Pennsylvania DCNR, Vision Air Research successfully completed what may have been the largest aerial deer survey ever. It was a monumental effort providing valuable information.” (Merlin Benner, President, Wildlife Specialists, LLC, Wellsboro, PA 16901)
“We know the success hunters had in certain areas, thanks to DMAP returns, and they support what Susan has been seeing on her film.” (said Merlin Benner, a DCNR wildlife biologist)
Repeat customers? Check. Satisfied customers? Check.
I’m wondering why you would want to enter into a business partnership with someone you refer to as “a dilettante”, let alone the other “reasons” you’ve already listed. I’m sure any reasonable reader will conclude that you enter into a business partnership with someone you feel can benefit you; either through expertise, equipment or added clientele.
Lastly, I am having a hard time understanding how 13 deer ( viewed / filmed ) from your IR survey became 47+4 deer ( posted ) on your final report for the CDC / CAES ITM Pheasant Ridge test area. The Vision Air FLIR survey recorded 12 deer in the same test site area just 5 days prior to your IR survey.
I think Doc Williams should have his other friend Tony write us a thread on why WB is the best, just so we have all the facts.
