airrow's Link
By sampling only fractions; 6.53% or ( 6 small transects ) of the town of Ridgefield, CT; the CT DEEP survey can only reliably report the number of deer in those fractions; they attempt to extrapolate them as town-wide numbers and as a result their numbers are grossly overstated... wildlife seek out preferred habitat in a town and will never be equally distributed in any town. This is why the numbers are in such disagreement; DEEP repeat partial surveys merely demonstrate that you can repeat the same error multiple times and get the same wrong answer.
With the Ridgefield town hunting programs targeting the last pockets of local deer, specifically female does; the deer herd will collapse in the next several years; just like their niehboring town of Redding, CT.
nehunter's Link
Yes, the article in question was posted in an earlier thread; it was equally self-serving and patronizing then too (speaking in reference to the author and not to you so we're clear).
To equate a concerned hunter with the animal rights cause is an admixture of undesirable qualities; nauseous, gaseous and just plain obnoxious.
Glen is acting out of concern for the stability of the deer herd so that hunting opportunities are not lost to any who wish to pursue them. Animal rights groups want no hunting; not anywhere, anytime by anybody, period.
Science has been advanced by those who did not accept either dogma, or the "status quo". History is replete with examples of such questioners who were anything but "uninformed" and whom history has fully vindicated.
Jason,
Not now, the adults are talking.
The CT DEEP did their two by-yearly transect surveys on 1/29/15 and 2/6/15 for transect 5; for an average transect count of 27.5 deer just three weeks prior to the Ridgefield survey done on 2/21/15 which showed 45 deer; uncorrected. How did the deer population in Ridgefield, CT increase by 63.63% in only three weeks ?
Now it gets interesting; with the DEEP stating they now need to 2X or double the 45 dpsm to get the, "more realistic estimate of deer density" of Ridgefield, CT. This would amount to to 90 dpsm, extrapolated throughout Ridgefield equals - 3,096 deer or 90 dpsm. Maybe DEEP forgot to look at the hunter harvest for 2014, 178 deer; which was down 24% from 2013, 236 deer.
Wildlife experts in the State of Connecticut have designed a scheme that shows an overabundance of wildlife through overpopulation counts to further it`s monetary gain. Much like Wall Street the DEEP is running a typical ponzi scheme with our Connecticut deer; over selling product they do not actually have.
The work to get the DEEP and CAES to correct their methods and control what happens to OUR deer herd is not over. If you don't agree, then state your facts or your opinions, but please don't infer that others should stop posting.
The solution to your problem is simple, ignore the threads you're not interested in reading. And if in 5 years you see your hunting experience disolve into nothing more than a walk in the woods, you won't need to wonder where the deer went. Just refer back to these threads and re-read them.
I would think that if White Buffalo, Tony DiNicola, Scott Williams and the CAES hope to be taken seriously, they'll realize that here in the real world (where some of us live), if you regularly hire and conduct business with your own Spokespeople, Former Employees, and College Roommates, some other people are going to wonder about conflicts of interest.
Workin' hard to get my fill Everybody wants a thrill Payin' anything to roll the dice Just one more time Some will win Some will lose Some were born to sing the blues Oh, the movie never ends It goes on and on and on and on on and on and on and on on and on and on and on on and on and on and on
Just asking a serious question here and maybe it has been rehashed over and over here but I have not been looking at some of the posts, but how could this claim be made? How would the "State of CT" gain monetarily on showing an over abundance of deer. Is it more grants for work, is it in revenue of license sales, kickback from insurance companies, or subcontracted companies like WB and VA, etc. I just don't get how or why the "State of CT" would do this. Now if you are talking about individual people within the state getting kickbacks or benefiting monetarily then that's another thing, but to claim that on a public forum without overwhelming proof would not be right. Just asking here that is all.
Glen you said "By sampling only fractions; 6.53% or ( 6 small transects ) of the town of Ridgefield, CT; the CT DEEP survey can only reliably report the number of deer in those fractions; they attempt to extrapolate them as town-wide numbers and as a result their numbers are grossly overstated... wildlife seek out preferred habitat in a town and will never be equally distributed in any town. This is why the numbers are in such disagreement; DEEP repeat partial surveys merely demonstrate that you can repeat the same error multiple times and get the same wrong answer."
I absolutely agree with you that the CT DEEP survey can only reliably report the number of deer in those fractions. But show me the proof that the numbers are grossly overstated. Show me the proof that the rather equally spread out transects are over favorable preferred habitat only. Show me the proof that the area in between the equally spread out transects doesn't contain the same number of deer that they saw in the transects. Explain to me how Wildlife experts in the State of Connecticut have designed a scheme that shows an overabundance of wildlife through overpopulation counts to further it`s monetary gain.
completely anecdotal info from me, but I'll share it to make a point anyway.
I've contacted the DEP and DEEP several times over the last 12-15 years about the decrease in the deer herd in the NW corner of CT. For most of those 12-15 years I was told I don't know what I'm talking about because "You can't use first hand observations in particular areas and say there's a problem for a large geographic region." In other words, I was hunting in the wrong places according to the DEP & DEEP. "There are plenty of deer in the NW corner."
Now the state is saying they can complete a survey in a small area and apply that count to the entire town being reviewed. How did they complete the survey? The same first hand observations I was referring to, just from above instead on foot, and they're applying those results to the entire town. I find that interesting.
They're also conducting a fawn mortality survey and placing radio collars on doe to determine their range and movements. Why? Because they're now saying there's a problem with the deer herd in the NW corner and they want to do something about it. I say they're 12-15 years behind the curve.
I'll let Glen answer your request for facts on Redding issue(even though he has shared them several times), but put something in the front of your mind for future reference - If 15 years ago I had hired someone to complete an FLIR of the NW corner like others have done in the Redding area, and pressured the state through the FOI act to share their data, maybe I wouldn't be complaining about the lack of deer there today? I'm guilty of not doing enough.
Which one of the MA guys has done what Glen and others have done to save your deer herd in the western part of the state?
it's right next to the town of "Poor House" :) That's where the State of CT is headed based upon current budget shortfalls. I'll meet you there in a couple of years.
Now how much did we spend to kill deer? Oh wait, that was Federal grant money and that comes from the Federal Grant money tree, not the tax payers. Right!
On an earlier thread I posted a response to questions about the validity of extrapolating deer counts from preferred wintering grounds townwide; I even posted a quote from the CT DEEP stating that there were sections of Redding they did not survey as they knew those sections held very few deer.
Think back to one consistent argument about why townwide aerial transects aren't flown; cost. Now recall information I've posted multiple times about the original intended usage of aerial transects; to monitor trends within a population of wildlife. The method was never intended to be used as a census tool but that is in fact what is being done and it is to the detriment of the CT deer herd.
The CT DEEP has biologists with considerable experience and (importantly) familiarity with the wintering habitat for the CT deer herd. This firsthand knowledge has helped to hold down survey costs by focusing on the known wintering areas.
Now if the CT DEEP would just use the aerial transect survey as it was intended and assess the population trend in these wintering areas there would be a lot less confusion and I've no doubt the deer herd would be in much better shape than it is today.
The non-surveyed areas are probably well-represented by the "boots-on-the-ground"; all the hunters of whom the CT DEEP sends an annual survey to (unless you request them not to). Instead of marginalizing this resource (you are asked to assess the health of the deer herd where you hunt remember) the CT DEEP should pay heed to the resource that has been saying for the past 3-5 years that the deer herd is not as robust as the CT DEEP reports it to be.
Now we've all been regaled with statistics on accuracy of the various survey methods so I won't rehash them again. Here though is a morsel to chew over when you consider it is the single highest weighted metric in assigning season lengths and tag allotments; the CT DEEP transect survey of Ridgefield showed an average of 27.5 dpsm 3 weeks prior to the present one showing 45 dpsm. Does it not concern anyone (other than the obvious posters who get it) that the single highest weighted metric determining how we mangage our deer herd is off by over 60% in counts for the same area in the space of 3 weeks time?
Frankly, that should scare the bejabbers out of anyone who has any interest in the future of deer hunting in CT.
It is very interesting what the State said about applying observations in a particular small area across the larger area, versus what it appears they are doing now in Fairfield county. If what you say is accurate, there is a clear contradiction in what they are saying.
Taking that a step farther, why would they knowingly support such a contradiction if their agenda isn't to create an artificially bloated count. I do believe the State is either making a conscious effort to inflate the numbers, or at a minimum not seriously considering well thought out criticism that they may be inadvertantly inflating the numbers.
On the other hand, to be fair to Shawn and others, it is less clear to me what is motivating this.
Now we've all been regaled with statistics on accuracy of the various survey methods so I won't rehash them again. Here though is a morsel to chew over when you consider it is the single highest weighted metric in assigning season lengths and tag allotments; the CT DEEP transect survey of Ridgefield showed an average of 27.5 dpsm 3 weeks prior to the present one showing 45 dpsm. Does it not concern anyone (other than the obvious posters who get it) that the single highest weighted metric determining how we mangage our deer herd is off by over 60% in counts for the same area in the space of 3 weeks time?
Do you really believe that if the first survey showed 27.5dpsm that they would shorten the season or reduce the number of tags when these towns and the state have made it clear over and over again that they want 10-12dpsm.
Again, the adults are talking. If juvenile retorts are the best you can do my advice is to take your ball and go home.
Grow up and come back when you have something of substance to add to the conversation.
You've completely missed the point; the issue isn't about what the number is/should be for reduction in tags; the issue is the significant variance in the same sampling method over the same area.
You cannot have that much variance in the method you base tag numbers and season lengths on. Go 18 down instead of up and you have a count of 9.5 dpsm. What happens then? The CT DEEP can't put the deer back, they're dead. Gone. Finito.
Would you hire a contractor to do remodeling work on your house if he told you that sometimes his measurements are 60% off the mark?
I'm not tired of this thread, so please don't use the absolute value of "everyone" when posting your thoughts.
I find no value in telling someone to stop posting facts, figures, opinions, on this subject. Why keep opening a thread that upsets you? Still can't figure that one out.
:) Can't forget my smile faces.
My hypothesis would fall right in line with what you have been saying all along. Deer move to areas of preferred habitat in the winter...therefore as the winter got worse, namely between 1/29 and 2/21, more deer moved into the "preferred" areas. the population in the preferred areas increased by 60% in 3 weeks over the population that currently resided there year round. I do not believe for a second that there are 45 dpsm in Ridgefield (maybe in pockets) but I would believe that there are 27dpsm.
Mike, I appreciate your time in responding to questions that I ask of Glen. Am I to assume that you speak for him as well??
Let me catch up a bit.
Just directionally, is the DEEP saying that the Ridgefield herd is on the increase, or on the decline?
And where did you get the numbers showing that the harvest is down 50%?? (Not saying I think otherwise, just wanting to keep the numbers straight).
I took a semester-long stats course in biosampling back in school... Transects are probably one of the worst methods available, but they're cheaper, when you have to budget your air-time. Personally, I have no reason to suspect that the DEEP is deliberately fudging their numbers; is the thinking that overreporting is being used to justify a hired-gun culling effort??
I guess the OP here said something about revenues, but CT doesn't make any more money for every deer killed. Maybe the license sales would decline if hunter success rates do take a tumble, but that's going to happen regardless of what the DEEP has to say about herd size. Guys who can't see enough deer to make a license worth the time & money are just going to quit. Guess I just don't understand where the profit is in BS-ing the data...
JMO, the best census-takers are the hunters who are out there seeing (or not seeing) the deer every day. Individual skillsets vary, of course, but that's why you benefit from a large sample size... kinda evens that stuff out a bit...
I guess overall, I'm just kind of confused by the level of distrust in the DEEP... And FWIW, I think it's really unfortunate that the article didn't offer any margin of error. Statistics are 98.7% useless without a credible confidence interval...
As far as "10-12 dpsm"; it is painfully apparent that the buck won't necessarily stop there. The CT DEEP will take the deer; per square mile down as far as the public and sportsmen will allow them to.
GF - The Ridgefield deer herd is declining, last year alone it had a - 24.57% decline in harvest. CT DEEP transect surveys numbers from 2009 - 2015 show a decline of - 56.75%. DEEP deer summaries show a decline of approximately 50% from 2009 - 2015. Much of this information came from FOIA requests.
The Ridgefield article also takes liberty of the deer seen being converted into deer per square mile; deer that are seen are only deer seen and do not equate to dpsm. This is a mistake that has lead individuals to believe they have more deer than we actually do.
