"Some funds were earmarked for estimated deer processing costs by White Buffalo, Inc. in the original project and subcontractor budgets for the integrated tick management project. Due to difficulties encountered in the performance of the work as a result of direct interference by members of the hunting community, the funds were authorized by Dr. Kirby Stafford to cover the extra time and effort needed to conduct the planned deer reduction activities to attempt to meet project objectives. Competing bait site placements and loss of shooting locations forced the subcontractor to spend additional time and effort in the performance of the contract ".
The statement above presumably came from Dr. Kirby Stafford of the CAES (CT Agricultural Experiment Station). I say “presumably” as it is much more common for an author of a statement to refer to themselves in the first person (“I authorized”, “The funds were authorized by me”, etc); usually speaking in the third person (as above) indicates the statement was likely written by someone else.
Regardless of who actually wrote this statement the purpose is crystal clear; an attempt is being made to blame the unsuccessful outcome of the ITM Study conducted in Redding, CT on “members of the hunting community and local property owners”. The purpose of this shameless deflection is of course to provide a rationale for why White Buffalo (the contractor hired by the CAES for the deer cull portion of the study) should not be required to pay back the $14,400 they were paid for the processing of deer they removed in 2013 and 2014. This is particularly hypocritical given that White Buffalo never had to pay for those deer to be processed, nor did they ever have to pay for any deer census or survey work during the entire ITM study.
The fact of the matter is that all processing fees were to be covered by Whitetail Solutions for up to 40 deer per year; White Buffalo would only have incurred processing charges above and beyond this number. This information all came to light due to an investigation of missing venison (approximately 2,350 lbs. or the weight equivalent of 58 deer) from the Hunt to Feed/Food Bank program during the years 2013 and 2014. It has been confirmed by Food Bank that they only received a total of 1,130 lbs. of venison during the years 2013-2015 from Whitetail Solutions and the CAES.
The total weight of venison taken during this 3-year period amounted to approximately 3,480 lbs.; why then does the amount received by Food Bank represent only 33% of the total weight of venison taken? Clearly there is a need for an explanation from the CAES and Whitetail Solutions as to where the rest (67% or 2,350lbs.) of the venison wound up.
If they didn't use the $14,400, it should be donated to hunt to feed so that they can process hunter donatd deer.
Those statements are very inflammaatory and ill concieved.
Unless homeowners or the hunting community broke some laws here or did something rising to the level of tortious interference, he is way out of line.
WB couldn't shoot the deer over bait, at night, with high powered rifles and it was all due to other bait piles and the loss of a few sites by the property owners?! Really!!
How many times did we hear "Baiting in one area will NOT pull deer from other areas". But now they claim this as a cause for the low kill?
Why did landowners revote permission? I thought we heard over and over that they WANTED WB there, to kill all of the deer. It couldn't possible be due to incidents like the one where WB shot a deer and then dragged it back to the property where they had permission, could it?
And now, the deer that were killed never made to the soup kitchen! And some wonder why hunters don't trust the DEEP and CAES.
Unfortunately Mr. Kirby Stafford, we do not agree with your logic. White Buffalo, Inc. lost many shooting sites due to their own infractions of the DEEP authorization; shooting from their vehicle (17) deer, no call to neighboring properties within 500`as required and recovery of deer from properties not authorized under DEEP or town of Redding. White Buffalo did not meet their contract obligations of lowering the deer population(using your counts) to meet the CAES stated goal of 10-12 dpsm.
That being said, no party has the “authorization” to amend or delete a contract between parties without a formal submission of the substitute language (or a clear explanation of what language is to be removed) for all involved parties to review and sign off on. I sincerely hope that if this is the process you followed that you have the supporting documentation to confirm that proper contractual practices were followed.
White Buffalo was also overpaid by $28,155.00, (salary); by virtue of their contract obligations for year two being reduced by the CT DEEP (on 1/10/14) by 66.66%; ( 75 to 25 deer ).
White Buffalo should also be required to refund the processing payments of year one and two of $14,400.00, due to White Buffalo not performing or paying for any processing or census survey work.
Your irregularities with the CAES test sites in Redding, CT are disconcerting to say the least. In spite of clearly stated parameters for these test sites there was shooting occurring 1/2 mile outside of test sites, test sites boundaries were moved and expanded during the ITM study, and last but not least, if recent survey numbers by the CAES are to be believed (and there is ample reason not to) not meeting the study goal of 10-12 dpsm in year three for the test areas.
In 2015 White Buffalo was authorized to start culling deer as of 1/16/15 by the DEEP. The CAES stated through an IR survey conducted on 1/15/15 that the Pheasant Ridge test site had 47 Deer + 4 possible deer, yet White Buffalo harvested only 11 deer over a 5 day period, 6 of which came from the Pheasant Ridge test site, and billed the CAES ITM Study $20,069.22 for this work.
White buffalo only worked 5 days culling deer for a maximum time of ( 15 hours per day ) or 75 hours total and billed the CAES at a rate of $95.00 per hour; which comes to $7,125.00. White Buffalo submitted billing hours of 189.5 and overcharged the CAES by $10,877.50; and the CAES authorized the payment. During the 3 year ITM study White Buffalo has overcharged the CAES ITM study by; $53,432.00 and should be required to payback these funds.
White Buffalo had until 3/31/15 to take another 14 deer or ask the DEEP for an increase in take in order to make the test site goal of 10-12 deer. White Buffalo and the CAES pursued neither or these two options.
There is also another possible reason for White Buffalo not meeting the test site numbers of 10-12 deer; they over shot the number. The private FLIR showed 12 deer (filmed) on Pheasant Ridge and the CAES IR is suspected to have only shown 13 deer on film (it was reported as 47 definite deer and 4 possible deer yet in reviewing the film it appears that there may have been multiple counting of the same deer); yet White Buffalo removed 6 deer in this test site thereby reducing the total to 6 deer. The CAES stated through an IR survey conducted on 1/15/15 that the White Birch test site had 44 Deer + 1 possible, yet White Buffalo harvested only 5 deer over a 5 day period and billed the CAES ITM Study. The private FLIR survey showed 11 deer and White Buffalo removed 5; leaving only 6 deer. This would be under the specified 10-12 deer for both test sites the ITM study required, thus violating the contract.
The CAES's ability to count deer has been questionable at best throughout the three year study; in year one it was stated that you had reached under 10 deer per square mile in Pheasant Ridge; nine months later you claimed 45 dpsm in the same test area. White Buffalo has not meet any of his stated obligations under the ITM study. The CAES’s IR survey of 1/15/15 showed the aforementioned 44 deer (and 1 possible deer) at White Birch yet on 3/3/15 the CAES aerial survey revealed only 9 deer on this same test site. As only 5 deer were harvested this leaves 30 deer unaccounted for. Most reasonable, thinking individuals would find this large a discrepancy in accounting as deeply troubling as I do.
Mr. Stafford, your attempt to blame local hunters and home owners for the CAES and White Buffalo not meeting your ITM study goal of 10-12 deer (based on CAES surveys)in the test areas is simply without merit and a weak attempt at shifting blame. The failure to meet the ITM Study goal is due to nothing more than a lack of integrity and laziness on the part of both the CAES and White Buffalo, Inc.
Scot Sanford, Redding, CT
This statement was recently posted / made by Whitetail Solutions praising themselves and taking credit for what they say they have done at the expense of others. In recent years Whitetail Solutions has become the White Buffalo of archery as we know it, playing by their own set of rules (similar to WB) - shooting off site and after hours and seemingly being provided “cover” by CT DEEP Wildlife Management against prosecution. Most recently, they seem to have misappropriated some 58 deer; approximately 2,350 lbs. of processed venison from the ITM study in Redding, CT, earmarked for the "Food Bank" (soup kitchens) is unaccounted for. Whitetail Solutions claims that 1 deer provides 200 meals; so by their math these 58 deer represent approximately 11,600 meals for the less fortunate !
Today, Whitetail Solutions is promoting this program for their own gain and not following the rules set by the Food Bank program or the rules of the CDC ITM study that they were directly involved with.
Over the past nine months Whitetail Solutions has been sent three emails requesting their receipt of the missing 58 deer from the CDC CAES ITM study during 2013-2014; to date we have not received any response whatsoever from them; and the CAES assures us that Hunt to Feed; Whitetail Solutions received them. It is believed that they have been using this processed meat (venison) for their own activities; with less than 33% of the processed venison from the ITM study actually making it to " Food Bank " for distribution. When Scot Sanford of Redding picked up two deer this year for the Congregational Church in Redding, CT he was told that he could get more, but he would have to give them something of value (gas card, etc.). Please note-It is illegal to barter or sell whitetail deer or venison in the State of Connecticut.
Sometimes I'm glad I'm old. I see some changes that scare me, I can see where things are headed. When hunting evolves into hired killers we will have lost part of heritage and that would be very sad.
Perhaps, since the CAES is essentially running the show, Scott Williams could spend a day at Large Game Company and improve their freezer survey techniques; you know, point out how sometimes it's easy to mistake "missing venison" for venison that has hidden between the frozen vegetables for example.
Why, I'll bet after a day with Scott in their freezer they could wipe out the famine in Ethiopia with all the "missing venison" he'd find for them......
How soon do you plan to notify the foodbank of your discovery of the missing venison?
I'm sure they're anxious to hear that you've accounted for it as that's a lot of meals for the needy and I know the CAES wants to do right for such a worthy cause.
I'm sure that will provide much greater comfort to them than a few meals ever could. Perhaps they'll have an equally high appreciation for your level of sensitivity as will any employee of Bed, Bath & Beyond for your tactless rejoinder at their expense.
It's funny you mention a smear campaign; how else would you characterize the unsubstantiated accusations made by Kirby Stafford listed in the opening post as anything other than a smear campaign?
If you want to try and cast the CAES as a friend of hunters of course it's appropriate to cite chapter and verse of instances where the CAES has been anything BUT a friend to hunters on the Bowsite.
As long as we're swapping metaphors; Wolf in sheep's clothing ring a bell?
I find it very disturbing that the CAES wipes their hands of the missing venison by stating once the deer were dead it was of no concern to you where they ended up!
Do have any evidence that the deery even went to the butcher? If the terms of the agreement with WB was that all venison should go to the food bank, then CAES SHOULD be held accountable for WB breaking the terms of the agreement, but it appears conflict of interest and lack of accountability with tax payers funds is par for the course.
As for certain people following you around and monitoring what WB is doing is NOT harrassment. I would welcome anyone to follow me in my daily routine at work because I have nothing to hide. In fact, my areas of responsibility get audited every months for ISO certification, NMI certification annually, interal audits for Sarbanes / Oxley complicance annually, 6S audit and EHS audits weekly. These are all part of making sure were doing our jobs in an ethical, responsible manner. I guess this is a novel idea for the state of CT work force.
I find the conduct of the CAES to have been remarkably consistent throughout the "study"; misrepresent the study as universally applicable to the control of Lyme disease when all the evidence cited (pertinent to killing deer) is limited to success in insular settings, not open settings like Redding, engage in a contractual relationship that is a clear conflict of interest at tax-payer expense, attempt to marginalize legitimate questions involving this expenditure of taxpayer funds and then attempt to blame anyone and everyone when they failed to meet the "goal" they used to sell this "study".
Talk about not fooling anyone here!
Do you think anyone who's been following this story doesn't wonder why so many helicopter surveys have been flown since mid-January? Amazingly, for all those tax-payer dollars spent the best you can offer up as supporting evidence to your deer density claims is a couple of pictures of 3-4 doe groups; hardly compelling evidence of the hordes of deer you continually "harangue" about here, supposedly roaming the streets and by-ways of lower Fairfield County.
Ironically, for all the time you've spent demagoguing Vision Air (even 5 weeks ahead of their report by the way) their results would have actually validated your study goal of 10-12 dpsm; instead you huff and puff about "your" numbers that have deer densities right about where they started and hang the label of "complete and utter failure" of your "study" around your neck like the albatross around the neck of the Ancient Mariner. Great strategy genius.
For a guy who claims to not talk about "town-wide" deer densitites it's ironic again how many times you make unsubstantiated claims that anyone believing single-digit deer densities is delusional; of course if you extrapolated your numbers you could make that claim; except you claim you don't do that; except when you do that to support your unsubstantiated claims; well, except you don't do that. Yeah, clear as mud and infinitely self-contradictory. Familiar song and dance from the king of the tap-dance.
I know it must really irk you to have the unwashed, illiterate masses dare to question you; how dare anyone read an aerial survey report that describes 10 transects, spaced 650 feet apart and do basic math and arrive at the irrefutable conclusion that 6,500 feet isn't a mile (it's 5,280 feet) and that your densities per square mile are about as flawed and misrepresented as the majority of your musings here.
How dare the great unwashed point out baiting outside of study areas and shootings half-a-mile outside same; what do this people no about reading a map? Well, actually when you post the maps I imagine most 5-year olds could put down the crayons long enough to draw the same conclusion.
No agenda? Not hardly; Redding was more than a "study", it was a trial balloon for an agenda about deer (MIS)management in CT and using hunters as the vehicle (tool) to that end. Why else run Howard Kilpatrick's article 3 times in the past 9 months in National publications? Spread the wealth as it were. Sorry, but like the titular characters in The Wizard of Oz we've seen the man behind the curtain and we are most assuredly paying attention.
Finally, as Bob stated so eloquently, your washing your hands of this missing venison is not in concert with the followings statement (page 9 of your request for authorization to the CT DEEP):
"Removal of deer carcasses will be handled locally and Joe Tucker of Connecticut Hunt to Feed has agreed to pay the butchering costs of 40 deer/year and will coordinate venison donation to food banks in New Haven County."
If you want to guarantee a service as part of your authorization that guarantee is in force up until such time as delivery to the Food Bank. If you want to take the credit you also get to take the blame when things go awry. That's called responsibility, a concept seemingly foreign to you.
Fooling anyone? Please-you haven't fooled anyone but yourself. Denial, not just a river in Africa.
Interesting point about Vision Air validating the study goal.
Given WB participation in the study I would say the goal of the study is that 10 deer per square mile = less lyme disease.
That result can then be marketed by WB as a means to get more business killing deer.
My theory is this. The lyme disease reduction results are not what WB and perhaps Doc had hoped. The best manner to save face is to argue that the deer per square mile have not been adequately reduced and that the study was compromised by hunters. Definately could be wrong on this but it would seem to support everything I am reading.
A conclusion that deer reduction does not have a significant impact on lyme disease is not in the best interest of WB so if the facts point to that conclusion, it is possible that the facts will be challenged rather than accepting the conclusion.
Goes back to question I posed earlier. Has DeNicola and WB ever been involved with a deer reduction study where it was determined that killing more deer did not result in a favorable ouotcome. I tend to doubt it. Assuming no, in the legal sense I would compare him with a for hire expert witness, where the testimony always supports the side that is paying the bill.
great points!! I'm placing my money on your theory, so time will tell.
Can anyone tell me why Dr Williams continues to post on this site? He doesn't listen to the hunting community and says we're too stupid to understand the science behind what the state is trying to do. He finds fault with private citizens spending their own money to improve their knowledge and discover the facts rather than sit back and be complacent. As long as you don't challenge his statements he'll engage you in a dialague, but it only appears to be self serving when he does.
The only conclusion I can come to is he has nothing better to do.
Dr. Williams's Link
Mike, will your nonsense ever cease? Are you delusional? Trial agenda? What? Why are you such an angry man who disagrees with everything I say, continue to talk down to me, make things personal and insult me? Now, what if I were to say the sky was blue? If I post here that I am against world hunger, would you counter-post that you are pro-world hunger? The numerous helicopter surveys were done by CAES and DEEP to validate/dispute the Vision Air and Davis Aviation surveys, which were in stark contrast to one another. And guess what, there are three survey techniques whose results are very close to one another and one that stands out on its own, and conveniently, that is the one you stubbornly stand by. “Flawed and misrepresented musings?” Seriously? I can back my “musings” here with hard data. Can you say the same? No, yours are merely backed with insults.
Toonces, if that were the case, why in Redding was the take for 2014 up considerably from 2013? In all of Glen’s postings of how much take was down in surrounding towns, you’ll notice he conveniently leaves out Redding’s data. In 2014, Redding’s take was 156 (116 archery, 37 shotgun/rifle, 3 muzzleloader) and that is up 11% from 2013 (92 archery, 40 shotgun/rifle, 9 muzzleloader). This would not be possible if densities had dropped to what you are suggesting. No one in Fairfield County can truly fathom what 7 deer/sm looks like. Realistically, if densities were in fact that low, why are the MA guys leaving similar densities to drive several hours to FF County, and leave with dozens of deer each year? You can reference Glen’s pie thread where he validates all the pies they leave with. Or the photo Glen provided of their replacement tag data from Redding Ridge market. Come on now. Let’s be serious. No one believes single digit deer densities in FF County. If that were the case, why was FF County ranked #1 best place to hunt in the East by Field and Stream? See link.
Bob. I ask myself the same question. And to answer why I post here, it is to offer what is actually happening in terms of wildlife management. I think most guys here get it, except for you, Mike, Toonces, and Glen. Bloodtrail gives me grief, but he understands where I am coming from. And I refuse to sit idly by and let a handful of guys spread lies and misinformation and perpetuate crazy conspiracy theories and tout ridiculous claims of insanely low deer densities merely because a private individual paid way too much for a flawed aerial survey. Frankly, I care about hunting and the field of wildlife management too much to let a handful of misinformed, Internet cowboys destroy our public image and ruin hunting for the rest of us.
This is the original letter stating " Food Bank " and " Redding Congregational Church "; and does not refer to various Connecticut Food Banks / and or non-profit organizations. Food Bank received 1,130 lbs. from the Redding, CT shoot over the 3 years. That leaves approximately 2,350 lbs. of venison unaccounted for. These figures are from the " Food Bank ".
very first word says - ALL. Terms and conditions of the contract were violated, thank you for verifying what Glen, Mike and others have been saying.
If no one from the state verified that ALL deer were donated as outlined then I can't see any possible way that you could say you weren't accountable for where they deer went?
I really don't know what to believe for sure.
What I do know is long before the results of the private FLIR were released you taking shots at the FLIR provider and trying to discredit those results.
Your a scientist. Why would a scientist try to discredit something before you have objectively reviewed the results? You didn't even allow for the possibility that the private FLIR might assist you or at least provide you additional data or insight. Shouldn't an open minded scientist want all the data he can get?
I also see CAES blaming deer hunters for compromising a study, also before the study results are complete. Again it doesn't make much sense to me.
If however I look at this through the lens of CAES and the folks performing the study, including WB had a outcome in mind, then it starts to make sense. Lets face it. You were granted a million dollars to do a tick study. WB is involved with a tick study and despite the PHD after Dinicola's name, his agenda here is pretty easily called into question.
To me your actions here (particularly trying to discredit the FLIR before you see the results) only make sense if you have preconcieved notion of what the results of your tick study should be. If your completely neutral on this and don't care what the conclusion of your study is, you would welcome all the input you can get.
I'll gladly stop posting factual information as soon as you acknowledge and/or complete the following:
1. Answer Toonces question about the survey method that validates your claim about "the public wants deer killed." Be sure to post the survey questions and all data metrics. You're a scientist; I'm sure you'd expect to see study metrics before you'd accept, sight unseen, anyone's hypothesis.
2. Admit that you spent 5 weeks vilifying Vision Air because you weren't as convinced as you'd like others here to believe regarding actual deer densities in Redding. On a related note please present a plausible explanation for the lack of evidence (film) despite dropping $30K of taxpayer funds (I'm sure you could have sprung for a few disposable cameras at a minimum).
3. Admit that you posted a misinformed screed (posted as your analysis of the Vision Air Survey results) that was quickly debunked and showed how clueless you were in all areas of their survey work.
4. Admit that your study is nothing more than a re-invention of the wheel; specifically that all the parameters have already been tested and the data published.
5. Admit that there is an ample reservoir of peer-reviewed literature showing methods that do not involve the eradication of deer have demonstrated great efficacy in reduction of lyme incidence.
6. Admit that engaging an employer of yours in a contractual relationship and spending $141K of taxpayer funds was inappropriate.
7. Admit that you lack the maturity to accept contrary viewpoints and that contrary to your claims the one who has talked down to and belittled the other side with the greatest consistency is none other than you.
8. Admit that per the terms of the scope of authorization you do bear responsibility for the delivery of all venison donations to the food bank as specified.
In the spirit of the Easter season I will concede that the sky is blue and I am also against world hunger.
I will not concede however to any internet bully, nor will I bow and scrape before any individual with an overinflated sense of accomplishment or worth. To quote my teenage daughter, "you ain't all that dude."
FYI, I like cowboy movies, particularly the spaghetti westerns Clint Eastwood made.
The scene where Tuco and the "Man with no Name" walk down the street and pick off Angel Eyes' men in a hail of cannon fire gives my chills every time. Its magic.
I actually tear up occassionaly during the scene where Angel Eyes and his henchman beat the hell out of Tuco while the prisoner band play in the back ground.
And of course the closing gun fight is movie history.
The whole thing is genuis.
Sorry to get off the rails there.
You didn't follow the terms of the contract if ALL deer were not brought to donation areas mentioned.
So I ask again, did you or any other CAES employee verify that ALL deer shot ended up with the charities mentioned??
I recall a thread last year from scotty (aka odo), where he was pushing for the legal sale of venison. That got me wondering about all the missing deer. I'm sure it was all in good intentions though. Results are meaningless when intentions are good.
Scott, I'll gladly stop posting factual information as soon as you acknowledge and/or complete the following:
1. Answer Toonces question about the survey method that validates your claim about "the public wants deer killed." Be sure to post the survey questions and all data metrics. You're a scientist; I'm sure you'd expect to see study metrics before you'd accept, sight unseen, anyone's hypothesis.
--DEEP is responding to the public’s call for reduction in deer densities statewide. Why else would they institute a 4.5 month season with unlimited take in densely populated areas of the state? Again, it is the democratic process. And now we are seeking additional opportunity for take on Sundays, because hunters cannot achieve publically acceptable deer densities in 119 days of hunting, they need the additional 19 days to get that accomplished.
2. Admit that you spent 5 weeks vilifying Vision Air because you weren't as convinced as you'd like others here to believe regarding actual deer densities in Redding. On a related note please present a plausible explanation for the lack of evidence (film) despite dropping $30K of taxpayer funds (I'm sure you could have sprung for a few disposable cameras at a minimum).
--Nope. I still maintain Vision Air’s data are junk. But she is smart I will give her that. She explains her method, equipment, the time spent, area covered, and what she saw. Never does she mention an actual density. She left that up to interpretation and here we are. But her methodology is garbage. If you won’t take my word for it, take Larry’s. See what I posted in the Davis IR Thread. The plausible explanation for lack of film is that we did not film the surveys from the helicopter. We are not equipped to do so and don’t need to anyway because we are ethical scientists seeking the truth. We did provide you the film from the IR camera survey data and as I recall, Larry Davis put you in your place with your “review” of his work. All the doubt on our methodology and inflated numbers and all that is the very reason that DEEP paid to bring Siburn up and show him. He helped count 36 deer on Pheasant Ridge, with 80% detection, that’s 45 deer/sm. And both he and Rick were first time observers and it would be pretty remarkable if they detected 100% of the deer. Even so, 36 deer/sm is a handsome abundance and over 3 times what Vision Air detected there.
3. Admit that you posted a misinformed screed (posted as your analysis of the Vision Air Survey results) that was quickly debunked and showed how clueless you were in all areas of their survey work.
--I used the information she provided, that she had 800’-wide transects and that her camera had a field of vision of 360’ straight down. Admittedly, I am not a pilot and have never operated an IR camera from the air. All I can determine is what she provided and that was not well explained in her report. Clearly she thought so too because she added the middle sentence to the Newtown report that came out after, and was not included in, the Redding report: “At 1,000 ft. above ground level looking straight down using the wide FOV the footprint or area covered by the sensor is 360 ft. x 234 ft. while the narrow FOV provides a footprint 90 ft. x 59 ft. This information on the field of view footprint is for reference only since we use an oblique look angle allowing coverage of the entire transect. The sensor operator / wildlife biologist sat in the rear seat and watched a high resolution 15 in. monitor to aim and focus sensor.”
4. Admit that your study is nothing more than a re-invention of the wheel; specifically that all the parameters have already been tested and the data published.
--Wrong again. Each treatment has been tested separately. None have been tested in combination, particularly the Met-52. That and the fact that deer removal alone has never been investigated as a tick reduction method in an inland setting is what makes this study unique.
5. Admit that there is an ample reservoir of peer-reviewed literature showing methods that do not involve the eradication of deer have demonstrated great efficacy in reduction of lyme incidence.
--Yes, but mostly from a modeling perspective. Ostfeld, who you guys love because he is the one scientist that does not implicate deer, has done most of his works with models. He is pretty much alone in his take on not implicating deer. 99% of the rest of us have a sneaking suspicion they play a huge role in the tick life cycle, and we were trying to prove/disprove that with this study. On the flip side, Howard’s paper is kind of pivotal because it shows that deer reduction alone can reduce Lyme disease cases in humans, not just reduce tick abundances. Perhaps that is why it has made national media so frequently as of late.
6. Admit that engaging an employer of yours in a contractual relationship and spending $141K of taxpayer funds was inappropriate.
--It was perfectly appropriate. It is a professional working relationship between two entities striving to improve public health of all citizens, and not just catering to hunters. For you guys to suggest we received this grant just to pay a colleague is preposterous. This was a small side project for WBI. Given the headache and knowing what he knows now, he wouldn’t have taken it. I am a Co-Investigator on the project, Dr. Stafford is the Lead Investigator. He is the Chief Entomologist of the State of Connecticut and he makes the final decisions on this project.
7. Admit that you lack the maturity to accept contrary viewpoints and that contrary to your claims the one who has talked down to and belittled the other side with the greatest consistency is none other than you.
--Right. The proof is all right here on this site. Nice try. One needs to merely look at your previous post here and the rest of them and all of Glen’s “Where are all the deer” rants from way back when, when he talks of me having only a 5th grade education and accuses me of a felony, among other ridiculous and libelous statements. I can provide links to all those too if you want. I have been getting it from about a dozen of you guys at any one time, and I am merely fending each of you off one at a time. See here for a definition of libel: “to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others.” Yup. This has been going on since the start of the project and is why I finally came here to defend myself and colleagues. For you to claim it is reversed is embarrassingly preposterous.
8. Admit that per the terms of the scope of authorization you do bear responsibility for the delivery of all venison donations to the food bank as specified.
-- We satisfied the terms of the Scope of Authorization. I provided the wording previously in this thread: “All deer taken shall be donated to the Hunt to Feed program. . .” And that they were. End of story.
In the spirit of the Easter season I will concede that the sky is blue and I am also against world hunger.
I will not concede however to any internet bully, nor will I bow and scrape before any individual with an overinflated sense of accomplishment or worth. To quote my teenage daughter, "you ain't all that dude."
--The fact that you are calling me an internet bully is certainly the pot calling the kettle black. Because I am literate and can answer your questions, even though they are not the answers you all seek, makes me informed, not a bully.
FYI, I like cowboy movies, particularly the spaghetti westerns Clint Eastwood made.
--So now will you “. . .gladly stop posting factual information. . .” as promised at the beginning of this post because I “. . acknowledge[d] and/or complete[d] the following:”? So, is that a promise that from now on, you will only be posting lies?
Hunters had a direct impact on our ability to take enough deer to reach goal densities for the project. Our DEEP Authorization to take deer expired March 31. You can do the math.
Dr. DeNicola is a sharpshooter yes, but also a well-published and well respected scientist. You clearly do not agree with sharpshooting deer, but that is a minor part of his work. Right now he is capturing hogs on Guam.
You need not question my scientific methods and suggest I have a preconceived notion of the study results. Deer removal is a minor aspect of this project that required minimal time from me. But it is the entire project to you guys. My crew and I captured and bloodletted 234 mice, some chipmunks, shrews, and voles in Redding in 2013 and 598 mice and some other bycatch in 2014. That was a lot of work but you guys don't care about that aspect of the project all you care about are the deer. I will let the tick numbers tell me the story and publish on those. But deer removal likely played no role because we were not able to take enough, the question will still remain unanswered, and Redding now has 87 fewer deer that were not taken by hunters.
At least you took a stab at it; you deserve credit for that much.
#1-still unanswered and as nebulous an explanation as I'd expect from the legislature on our budget.
#2-you're entitled to your opinion (as is Mr. Davis). See Glen's post about some of the claims made and their falling down in the face of evidence. Try and explain too why he'd have approached Susan Bernatas about a partnership given his professed disdain for her qualifications. Business seek out partnerships where there is benefit of one form or another.
#3-you have a point about the addendum to the Newtown report; however, researching your conclusion prior to your post would have made that a moot point. Objectivity took a backseat to personal bias in this case.
#4-I didn't say that the parameters were tested at the same time, just that they were tested. It was a fair assumption on your part so this one I'll concede.
#5-good answer; credit given where due.
#6-Sorry, if you don't see the issue you may want to grab a book or two on business ethics, especially involving government contracts. I know Bob's in the same boat as me on that score; both of us would be polishing up our resumes with our jobs if we'd crossed that line.
#7-Sadly I'm sure you typed your response with a straight face. I'm sure I'm not alone in finding your inability to see your Lord of the Manor approach is present more often than not.
#8-The Food Bank seems to have a contrary opinion. My understanding from Glen is he has documentation to that effect; should we ask him to post it?
Pot meet kettle. I could ask Bob about how many times and ways you questioned his intellect but that would be redundant. Answering questions usually means in the completeness of the request; not tap-dances or half-hearted stabs, the full, unvarnished truth.
"You need not question my scientific methods and suggest I have a preconceived notion of the study results."
Given what you've posted that was a valid observation. Your response (basically "how dare you!!") is a perfect example of your bullying those who dare question you. Get over yourself.
Clandestine; like posting under a fake name you mean? That did wonders for your credibility.....
Your attempts to implicate me in this are lame at best.
What is your fixation with taking credit? Asking for an accounting is legitimate if the terms stated "all" and the recepients says they didn't get "all".
Still waiting on that citation about extrapolating a sample population when the population in question does not assume an equal spacial distribution.
Maybe your alter ego Odo can pitch in and help in the search.....
Scott,
Just for you and Odo.....
the best news Doc Williams ever provided - the WB experiment is over! I'm surprised he has so much time to play with us. I would have guessed he'd busy analyzing all of the data, facts, figures, transects, mice, venison, etc to determine the results of his "scientific" study and publishing his paper in the Journal of Tick Science.
In the end, I'm going back to my hunting spots, at least for another few years until I'm too old to pull back the bow and I'll have forgotten all about Doc Williams and all the fun we had together. But then again, I probably won't remember anything by then. Gotta go and get a price on adult diapers.
Yup. My favorite tee shirt states merely "Paddle faster, I hear banjos." The only guy who has gotten it was the local pizza guy, who hit the floor in laughter.
"Aerial deer surveys serve as an index and people get too wrapped up in the total number, when what is important is 1) whether a given deer population is increasing, decreasing or stable and 2) what is the management goal for that zone to increase, decrease or maintain at the same level.
Management goals are based on aerial survey results, deer/vehicle collisions, harvest, crop damage issues, homeowner complaints, species diversity, plant diversity, forest regeneration and the desires of deer hunters.
The bottom line, deer management is complex with many variables, many players, few absolutes and no simple solutions."
A little late to the dance but at least ya brought me flowers....
In 2013 the Food Bank received 635 lbs. of venison on ( 3/1/13 and 3/11/13 ). Missing venison for 2013 is approximately 1,405 lbs. or 35 deer. No venison was received or logged in by the Redding Congregational Church in 2013 from the ITM study.
In 2014 the Food Bank received 140 lbs. of venison on ( 4/2/14 ). Missing venison for 2014 is approximately 845 lbs. or 21 deer.
In 2015 the Food Bank received 365 lbs. of venison on ( 1/26/15 ); which leaves approximately 2,350 lbs. of venison unaccounted for to date from the ITM study in Redding, CT.
Please email me your receipt or log in date for venison you say; you " packed the freezer ", at Redding Congregational Church; the church has nothing logged in for either 2013 or 2014.
Scot Sanford delivered the last two deer to the Redding Congregational Church in 2015.
DEEP required all venison be donated, and it was. You are not going to find any wrong doing on our end, because we only abided by the terms of the DEEP Authorization.
Nice try but no sale. I can post all the times I referenced the purpose of the aerial survey method but you know as does everyone here that you just posted EXACTLY what I've been saying all along.
I'm still waiting for a peer-reviewed citation of the validity of extrapolating population samples when the target population does not assume an equal spatial distribution.
You can waste time and obfuscate or you can admit what you and I both know; there is no such reference out there.
That's the problem you run into when you try and fudge your way out of the corner you painted yourself into. You can only ridicule lower deer densities by extrapolating your sample data. That becomes the proverbial millstone around your neck though when you're asked to deliver the goods; the source that validates that method.
The one area you've been remarkably consistent in is that inability to admit when you've either been dead wrong or tried to put one over on the masses and gotten caught.
Regarding survey number disparity; I see you're still playing dodge ball with the White Birch numbers. Let me recap; Vision Air, 11 raw, CAES 3/3 survey 9 raw, Davis, 44 definite, 1 possible. As WB took 5 deer that leaves 29 or 30 unaccounted for by your "gold standard".
Most people would agree that 11 is a lot closer to 9 than 44 or 45 is. Spin away on that one.
Regarding lying; when you send a letter out that tabs the virtues of reducing deer densitites to reduce lyme incidence but fail to mention that those results have not been achieved in open settings that is a lie; a lie of omission.
Not just semantics either, though some people seem to feel the lies of commission are the more egregious offense.
In an nutshell Scott, you haven't made any case for staking out the moral high ground. I'm not perfect either by any stretch but at least I've never created a fake persona to post my thoughts and feelings on any subject matter, not here or anywhere else.
Physician, heal thyself.
Toonces, if that were the case, why in Redding was the take for 2014 up considerably from 2013? In all of Glen’s postings of how much take was down in surrounding towns, you’ll notice he conveniently leaves out Redding’s data. In 2014, Redding’s take was 156 (116 archery, 37 shotgun/rifle, 3 muzzleloader) and that is up 11% from 2013 (92 archery, 40 shotgun/rifle, 9 muzzleloader). This would not be possible if densities had dropped to what you are suggesting. No one in Fairfield County can truly fathom what 7 deer/sm looks like. Realistically, if densities were in fact that low, why are the MA guys leaving similar densities to drive several hours to FF County, and leave with dozens of deer each year? You can reference Glen’s pie thread where he validates all the pies they leave with. Or the photo Glen provided of their replacement tag data from Redding Ridge market. Come on now. Let’s be serious. No one believes single digit deer densities in FF County. If that were the case, why was FF County ranked #1 best place to hunt in the East by Field and Stream? See link.
Scott; Your response to Tooces is incorrect........ You seem to be confusing years 2013 and 2014 for Redding, CT. In 2013 the overall harvest was 156 deer, ( 92,40,9,15 ) and in 2014 the harvest was 130, ( 90,37,3 ); which represents a decline from 2013 to 2014 of 16.66%. Anyone that hunts zone 11 knows what single digit deer numbers look like.
The CAES stated there were 45+ dpsm in the Pheasant Ridge test area 1/16/15. White Buffalo and the CAES had until 3/31/15, ( 59 days ) to take another 14 deer or ask the DEEP for an increase in take in order to make the ITM test site goal of 10-12 deer. White Buffalo and the CAES pursued neither or these two options. Why ?
you're 100% correct. You have stated repeatedly that the aerial surveys should only be used to determine trending for the specific area within the survey limits, and not extended to the entire town or other areas.
It amazes me that Scott can make a statement like that and think that no one is paying attention to the previous posts!!
I can't begin to count how many guys just blew milk through their nose while eating their cereal when reading this quote "Anyone that hunts zone 11 knows what single digit deer numbers look like."
I can't think of anything quite so comical as a post where you're chided for not including 2014 crop permit deer kills when the chart posted for 2014 as a "rebuttal" doesn't have a column for "crop permit kills".
Maybe the assumption was that you are a clairvoyant and could consult the astral plane for a number that doesn't yet exist, or may not exist at all.
I also would have to note it becomes painfully obvious who is and who is not a bowhunter; the January season is counted in the calendar year it occurs in; the tags you purchase in 2014 are no good in January of 2015, that is a separate, new season.
The 2015 season runs as follows: Jan 1-31st in Zones 11 & 12, bowhunting only, private land only and then Sept 15-Dec 31st in all zones, state and private land.
The harvest statistics for 2015 begin with the first reported deer kill in Jan 2015.
Of course, the easiest way to see how deer are counted towards harvest year is in the confirmation numbers themselves. The confirmation number is a 7-digit number and the first 2 numbers are the last 2 digits of the year the deer was killed in.
For example:
2012 would be 1203402
2013 would be 1305226
2014 would be 1413004
(numbers above used with the permission of the bowhunter involved)
2014 Harvest reports include only 2014 harvest numbers; Jan (2014) season and then Sep 15-Dec 31-period.
Some people just don't know when to remain silent.....
It amazes me that Scott can make a statement like that and think that no one is paying attention to the previous posts!!"
And yet Bob, strangely enough, we have yet another example of a misrepresentation of what I've posted.
And here I thought when my kids grew up my days of dealing with petulence would be over......
Redding Hunter take 2013-- 92, 40, 0, 9 (archery (which includes 2014 Jan season), gun, landowner, muzzle) = 141
Redding Hunter take 2014 116, 37, 0, 3 (archery (which includes 2015 Jan season), gun, landowner, muzzle) = 156
Second, you may want to grab the nearest dictionary and look up the word "assume".
Let me know when you stumble across The Journal of Scientific Assumptions or Annual Scientific Assumptions to validate your positions.
Lastly, please pass along my congratulations to your peers (if indeed you accurately sum up their methods) for the incredible demonstration of applying the same wrong methods to achieve the same wrong answer.
FYI-you are demonstrating reproducibility here, not accuracy. (You may want to bring a lunch to the library.)
If you keep this up I will be sending you a bill for tutorial services rendered.
"DEEP is responding to the public’s call for reduction in deer densities statewide. Why else would they institute a 4.5 month season with unlimited take in densely populated areas of the state? Again, it is the democratic process. And now we are seeking additional opportunity for take on Sundays, because hunters cannot achieve publically acceptable deer densities in 119 days of hunting, they need the additional 19 days to get that accomplished."
So basically your backward logic is - The DEEP does it, therefore the public wants it done. Nonsense.
What Democratic process are you referring to? The DEEP is not an elected body, its a bureacracy. Changes to game regulations such as bag limits, baiting, seasons, etc are not subject to popular vote or other representative approval process. It is an administrative function, not a democratic one.
On the other hand, changes to the CT statutes that would increase deer kills are subject to the democratic process and have consistently failed in that process - thinking specifically of Sunday Hunting. If the public is demanding more deer be killed why has Sunday hunting consistently been defeated? Our legislative process is far from perfect, but it is our best attempt at representing the will the people. The DEEP makes no such attempt, that you have been able to recite here.
For what its worth, the vast majority of CT may indeed want more deer dead, I don't know, but it seems the DEEP doesn't know either.
love your point about the "Public wanting more dead deer and yet the Sunday bill is shot down year after year." Seems pretty clear what the public wants!!
I read all of the articles I can find about hunting in CT, or about the deer herd in general and I have seen just 2 clear sides to the issues.
Hunters - want Sunday hunting. Friends of Animal (and the like) - want to outlaw hunting all together.
I have NEVER, repeat NEVER seen an article from a landowner (public) asking the state to have someone come to their house to kill the deer that are eating their shrubs. If the good doctor has one, please post it for all of us to read so that we too may become enlightened.
I find comments like this to be totally out in left field.
Toonces. DEEP is not an elected body, true. But it is part of the executive branch of the CT government. And true, switching from a bag limit of 2 to 4 is an administrative/ legislative function, but ask yourself what is driving that change? The democratic process. If the public want fewer deer, they advocate for an extended season January season or Sunday hunting. To suggest that DEEP makes the changes and then surveys public opinion is just plain incorrect. Why do we have 4.5 months of deer hunting on the shore and FF county and unlimited tags? What is driving that? Why is everyone on this site encouraging people to contact their legislators about Sunday hunting? Ummmm, democratic process?????
Bag limits and seasons, baiting, crossbows, etc, are only a administrative function. Don't confuse the issue by including /legislative. The legislative function is distinct from a bureaucratic administrative rule making/regulatory function.
What we are both talking about is the majority public, that as you correctly point is is not an animal rights nut, and also doesn't hunt. What do these people want is the question.
How are the majority of these people "advocating" to the DEEP that they want more dead deer?
I don't know how many different ways I can ask and you not answer.
It is not an answer to say that DEEP is making these changes because the public wants it. How does the DEEP know this is what the public wants?
The DEEP are not elected officials, they are bureaucrats. They don't answer to the voters in the same direct way that legislators do, yet you claim that there policies are purely driving by public opinion.
I don't have an agenda here. Like I said, It is very possible that the public does want more dead deer, although the consistent failure of any democratic process backed by the DEEP to make that happen seems to indicate otherwise. I am actually suprised you can't quickly and easily point to real metrics and process that the DEEP uses to determine what the public wants.
Another clarification; we're not debating, you're obfuscating; I'm still waiting for you to actually debate; you know, with a citation or two of substance, not perpetual regurgitations of assumptions.
Speaking of assumptions you really need to learn to not compound your losses. I am not hording deer in FF County; like Bob, I much prefer the big woods challneges in the NW Corner of the state.
I love the last two lines in your opening paragraph by the way; somewhere out there is a psychiatrist who could retire diving into your tendency to project. Given the times you've tried to spin the same fable I got a good chuckle out of "the more times you post".....ad infinitum, ad naseum.
Secondly, I'm shocked; shocked I tell you, that you'd equate deer as belonging to me or anyone else here given the number of times you've proclaimed them to be owned by "the public" and how you've inferred we hunters aren't the public and can keep our opinions on deer and tags to ourselves.
You remember "the public" right Scott? That ever-elusive, quasi-phantasmic entity that is out there clamoring for deer to be killed. "The public" that poor Toonces is growing ever-closer to retirement age as he waits for you to identify it, or at least tell him what sampling methodology was used to define it.
Oh, a bit of a history lesson Scott; it was the lobbying efforts of the former UBC (United Bowhunters of CT) that led to both the advent of the early bow season (Sept 15th instead of Oct 1st) and the tag number increase. I guess the UBC didn't have the pipeline to "the public" like you do.
The UBC (along with the CAC and Bob Crook) also lobbied long (and successfully, obviously) for January bowhunting in Zones 11 and 12.
Maybe it's time for you to bring back Odo; sparring with you is getting to be about as challenging as shaking down a 1st grader for their milk money.
Mike. Why do you think the United Bowhunters attempt was successful? Tradition? I think not. Your pompous attitude will lead to the demise of hunting in CT due to a false sense of entitlement. These advances were only successful because they were in line with public desires, you know, promises of reduced deer vehicle collisions, reduced tick-borne diseases, landscape damage, etc. The very causes you guys cannot deliver and are now rallying against. Clearly, you guys are not politicians.
We, the hunters, also known to be the "Public", have delivered. The deer herd has been cut in half since the initiation of the Jan. season, baiting and unlimited doe tags. Now, many of us on this site are seeing what can happen if the system stays the course for the future of our deer herd.
All many of us are asking for is to have the state take a deeper look into managing the herd better so the strong decline in numbers doesn't continue like the trend is showing currently. Some of us here can manage the deer on our own.....but it's the other 15,000 plus bowhunters in the state of CT that see four tags or six tags or unlimited doe tags that think, "I can shoot what the state allows".
So we would like a redesigned tagging system that allows for some deer to be taken, but also reinvigorates the health and longevity of our sport.
I agree that archers have become more efficient largely due to technology, but if firearms with their extended range cannot achieve the densities that the public desire, there is no way archery can. In residential areas where firearms use is restricted, there are too many non-hunted refugia for negatively conditioned deer to retreat to for archery to be effective. I applaud you for coaching your friend to shoot those groups into a target, but how many deer did he take?
Again, for as long as there is an average of over 20 deer/sm, you will not see any decrease in tag allotment. CT archers have been spoiled with outrageous deer densities that still exist today. Yes densities have been reduced, but from a high of astronomical, unsustainable densities. I'd suggest archers get used to modern-day conditions because DEEP ain't changing it anytime soon. Again, goes with what I have been saying all along. Hunters can adapt, or continue to complain about DEEP to no avail.
Mike in CT's Link
If it's any consolation, you are right about there being a democratic process; even a blind squirrel can stumble upon a nut in the forest.....
Kyle,
Link attached for your benefit (and for the other fully conscious readers)...
From testimony last month (yes, March 24, 2015) you'll see Susan Whalen of the CT DEEP testifying to there being an "estimated" 120,000 deer in CT. This isn't denial any longer; it's delusion. Keep preaching the self-policing doctrine because if we leave deer management up to the DEEP we'll all be taking up croquet soon.
If Scott is saying it's our reps that demanding more deer killed then provide the names of the reps that have asked for this. I asked my rep if he would vote for the bill and he said he would the support the bill for the SPORTSMEN of CT, and it made sense to eliminate an old blue law in the state. He never said the people of his district are demanding more deer be killed.
The Sunday bill is not intended to kill more deer as Scott states, but is geared around allowing property owners the right to hunt on Sunday if they wish,...they still have the same number tags, therefore more deer will NOT be killed.
Same holds true for the 4.5 month archery season in CT. The length of the season has absolutely nothing to do with the bag limit, and I would have thought that Dr Williams could figure that one out on his own, but I suppose some people miss the obvious. And who sets the bag limits for that 4.5 month season,... the DEEP.
By the way Dr Williams - your statement that the DEEP will not change the bag limits as long as there are 20 dpsm,....how many deer psm are in the NW corner? The last time I asked the DEEP they weren't sure, but they were concerned enough to do be doing fawn mortality studies. Why aren't the bag limits reduced there?
Your confusion is so typical. Carry on.
I'm still waiting to hear an explanation as to why the CAES and White Buffalo didn't try and take any additional deer in the last 59 days of the ITM study; to make their goal 10-12 dpsm ? With this study running hundreds of thousands of dollars you would think the CAES would have be a good explanation.
You'll never get an answer, he's avoiding the common sense questions and is acting very "Yossarianesque". Now I'm really impressed!
Thanks for finally making an attempt at answering my question. Not sure why it took so long.
So the DEEP is basing its belief that public wants fewer deer on feedback they are getting from state legislators in Fairfield County. Interesting you previously stated somewhere that the public wants more deer killed statewide. You have now changed it up a bit to limit that assessment of public opinion to Fairfield County only.
I think that is probably a fairer assessment.
Perhaps some of your confusion would be eased if you considered that the source of "Yossarianesque" comes from the classic Joseph Heller novel, "Catch-22", a work of fiction. Perhaps this was unintentionally ironic, yet so apropos, as much of what Scott has posted would easily qualify as a work of fiction.
Well, at least he didn't label me "Proteusesque" (from the classic Kurt Vonnegut novel "Player Piano"), a much better read in my opinion.....
The DEEP has been aware that there are areas in the NW corner (especially areas you and I are familiar with; Norfolk, Colebrook, East Hartland, Hartland, Barkhamstead and New Hartford in particular) that have been at or below 10dpsm for more than a few years now.
While it's a good step to do a fawn mortality study the obvious question is why no adjustment in tags?
Sound management should have dictated that step been taken at least 2-3 years ago if not longer.
Toonces. Agreed. Fairfield County and Shoreline is where this situation is most polarized, as seen by the 4.5 month hunting season and limitless tags. And still, densities in residential areas are not where the public wants them. Hence, the Sunday hunting proposal on private properties where deer are deemed “overpopulated” by DEEP. Right?
Mike. Where did you get your density figure for NW CT? Out of thin air? Or did you extrapolate from the private Newtown and Redding flights? Based on your previous posts, I am sure that you have surveyed the entire towns of Norfolk, Colebrook, East Hartland, Hartland, Barkhamsted, and New Hartford because as you stated previously numerous times, deer are not evenly distributed across the landscape and density cannot be confused with population and the only way to determine the population is to survey the entire town(s), right? I swear I've heard that somewhere before. . . And I know you practice what you preach, right? That is if you practice at all, 'cause we all know you like to preach. . .
Bob, for $10 words, look no further than your compadre Mike. He's on Thesaurus version 19.3 and shift F7 no longer works in Word. Is his vocabulary impressing you?
Yossarian thought himself sane and everyone else crazy. Kind of like this ongoing deer density debate. . . Single digits. . . seriously. . .
January 10, 2015 VAR survey White Birch-11 deer (raw count)
Jan 15, 2015 DAR survey White Birch-44 deer, 1 possible (raw count)
March 3, 2015 CAES aerial survey White Birch-9 deer (raw count)
Yup, one definitely stands out on it's lonesome and danged if someone isn't "stubbornly standing by that one."
I'd become a spin-ninja too if I had to play that hand.....
Yes, there will be anomalies in replicates, but that is why we base averages on repeated samples (plus I thought I was reporting bogus numbers). Let look at mean replicate values and see which stands out instead of cherry picking replicates that suit your argument.
Davis Aviation 2015 raw average = 29/sm
CAES 2015 raw average = 29/sm
Vision Air 2015 raw average = 7.5/sm
I believe it was the following year in a conversation with Andrew LaBonte the subject came up again while discussing increased sightings of black bear; I intimated, and he seemed to agree that it was possible the growing bear population was impacting fawn recruitment. I don't find it coincidental that shortly thereafter the fawn recruitment study was undertaken.
I see you forgot the conversation about demonstrating reproducibility does not necessarily demonstrate accuracy. If there were 45 dpsm at Pheasant Ridge I don't think harvesting another 14 deer would have been anything other than a walk at the beach for a proficient sharpshooting organization like WB.
Of course, you can't shoot what isn't there can you?
once again you avoid answering direct questions. Why didn't WB kill more deer since your survey showed there far too many deer STILL in the kill zones?
As for the NW corner, I also had a few conversations with Kilpatrick and Labonte. Labonte agreed that there is a definite problem with the herd in the NW corner and thus the fawm mortality study. It only makes sense that the DEEP is concerned since they are spending the money and time to do the study.
Answer the question please - why didn't WB kll more deer? Waiting to hear the rest of the story.
I suppose now you're going to say that WB didn't take more deer because Glen and others who hunt the area didn't want more deer killed and you listened to the public. ;)
I never said I agreed or disagreed with the count in the NW corner. In fact, Kilpatrick said there were plenty of deer, and Labonte had a different take, so yet again the DEEP has no idea, but the study tells me they're concerned.
I said the herd was way below carrying capacity and way below what it was years ago. The hunting experience is not something that will interest the young and new hunters, it's just too hard to find deer unless you have someone to SHOW where they are.
I don't hear the public in the NW corner sreaming about their shurbs or lyme disease, so why not limit the take to the carrying capacity and improve the hunt.
Your answer is????????????????????
I see you keep going back to private land being "locked up or inaccessible" to hunting....but I have to digress. In my personal experience, I have found evidence of poachers/trespassers on most every piece of private land I have had access to. It's hard to find a piece of property that doesn't have a treestand/groundblind, baiting, evidence of someone being there.
Has anyone else seen this as well? Just adding to the thread.
I'm still waiting to hear an explanation as to why the CAES and White Buffalo didn't try and take any additional deer in the last 59 days of the ITM study; to make their goal 10-12 dpsm ? With this study running hundreds of thousands of dollars you would think the CAES would have be a good explanation.
Scott; Please answer the question.........With your CAES Pheasant Ridge survey showing 45 dpsm in 2015; why didn`t WB take more deer to get to the ITM study`s 10-12 dpsm ?
I have zero experience in the SW section of CT, but I can tell you that I have called the DEP several times over the years, as well as the caretaker for Great Mountain Forest and MDC to report people hunting illegally.
One year there were 2 DEP trucks at the access point to Houstonic and they were looking for some guys from MA that were poaching (sorry guys, their words, not mine) in the area. This is the same area that I complained about several times where people were huntingn out of bounds.
I have turned in guys for everything from cutting trees on private property to killing over the bag limit, some of them co-workers who were bragging about breaking the law.
The few landowners I've spoken with have mentioned that they had problems with someone shooting close to the house or crossing their property with a gun in hand, so they weren't thrilled about granting permission. I always tell them that if I see anyone I will report them to help with the problem.
The Redding hunter take in 2013-14 was 141 and in 2014-15 was 156.
Is that stat correct? If so, what is the explanation from the camp that says Redding deer have practically been wiped out?
2013 Redding harvest was - 156 deer
2014 Redding harvest was - 130 deer
The Redding deer population is down approximately 75% over the last 6 years....it is not " wiped out " it is at approximate 7.5 dpsm.
2013-Jan 2014 - 92 archery, 40 gun, 0 landowner, 9 muzzle = 141
2014-Jan 2015 - 116 archery, 37 gun, 0 landowner, 3 muzzle = 156
Glen can't explain it because it is counter to his argument, so he adds the 15 crop damage deer into the 2013 number and does not include Jan 2015 archery or crop damage in 2014. That way, the numbers work for his argument. And the single digit density, I can't believe he is sticking to that.
From a wildlife management perspective that seems to mean, we are killing more deer therefore we are not killing enough deer, or we are killing less deer therefore we are killing too many deer.
And yes Scott I am sticking to my numbers; as long as you are tap dancing; maybe you can now tell us why WB did not take the additional deer in Pheasant Ridge this year to get to 10-12 dpsm ?
WB got paid big bucks (my big bucks) to do a job, and it appears to me they had the opportunity to take more deer (since there are soooooooooo many) and failed to honor that part of the contract, for no other reason than they didn't want to????
Answers please! I gave you a point, so let's play fair.
I'm going to have to rescind the point I gave you. Did a little research of my own. Redding kill figures below are from the DEEP Deer Harvest Reports, no report on the internet for 2014 season (wonder why?)
2010 310 2011 275 2012 241 2013 156 2014 no report????
Based upon these numbers I would give several point to the Redding hunters who stated the herd is below the 12-15, 40-45 dpsm (pick a number, doesn't matter) figures. Half the kill in 2013 vs 2010, just 3 years and the kill dropped 50% WITHOUT WB in place. Who do you explain this?
If you going to say it's because all of the deer in Redding ran to Mr Jones back yard because he doesn't hunt then wouldn't that have occured YEARS ago when people starting hunting in Redding, and not just recently?
Glen, no, your statement/numbers are not correct, purely self serving, and you are not comparing apples to apples. Let's break this down to show how you derived your numbers to suit your argument.
Glen's 2013 numbers are hard to dispute because they are published in the 2013 deer program summary. Glen's figure of 156 for 2013 came from:
92 archery (which includes January 2014 as confirmed by Andy LaBonte)
40 shotgun/rifle
0 landowner
9 muzzleloader
15 crop damage
156 total
Now he is comparing that to his 2014 number in which he only includes these from his DEEP FOIA which I included higher up in this thread:
90 archery, in calendar year 2014 (but excluding January 2014 take)
37 shotgun/rifle
3 muzzleloader
0 landowner
130 total
Why is January 2015 archery take or 2014 crop damage not included here like they are for the 2013 numbers?
In my expert opinion, if we are comparing between years, and January 2014 harvest is rolled into 2013 number, it only makes sense to me for comparison purposes that the 26 deer taken in 2015 January should be rolled into the 2014 numbers. And as Glen stated earlier in the thread "The CT DEEP has not listed crop kill for Redding, CT 2014" so he assumes that is a 0, but still includes the 15 reported in 2013. But even Glen himself did not say that that was a 0 for 2014, just that it hadn't been listed yet.
So Glen, if we want to be consistent in counting harvest between years, let's include the same method/month of take in each year so we can properly compare, and that is what I provided, with the proper documentation. And I realize it goes counter to your argument, but those are the numbers.
And Bob, I'll take my point back now.
maybe you'll get the point, but until the DEEP publish the numbers for 2014 so that they are also "hard to dispute" in your words I won't rely on either sides reporting. I find them both to be self serving.
I wish you would address the point I made that the harvest numbers in Redding have dropped every year that was reported since 2010 by 50%, a pretty DRAMATIC decrease since WB was not in place, wouldn't you agree???
Your confusion is easily remedied; in the NW corner when the physical evidence confirms the DEEP estimates there is nothing to dispute. One of the benefits of having lived and hunted up here since 1989 is first-hand evidence.
Additionally, at the time I reached out to Senator Roraback I didn't have any information on deer densitites; that came as a result of my call and as it lined up with the physical evidence it seemed to put the matter to rest.
Why the different view of SW CT? Well for starters the same people may be performing aerial surveys in Zone 11 but there hasn't been an aerial survey in Litchfield County since at least 2008 (if then) as statewide aerial surveys were discontinued in 2009.
Recognizing that there may be a different methodology in place from 2010 onward you examine that methodology in comparison to the same physical observations and apply the same yardstick; the survey results correlate with your observations or they do not. When it's the latter you question why. When that fundamental question leads you to conclude that a valid method is being misapplied then the questions remain until addressed.
I won't speak for Glen but can conclude that for him that resolution drove a privately-funded FLIR survey. It seems apparent to him that those results match up with his physical observations and he has drawn his conclusion. I happen to think he's right.
I think someone with intimate knowledge of a town and the resident deer herd is in the perfect position to assess what the on-the-ground reality is, not someone who only surveys 6% of an area, regardless of their qualifications or however well-intended they might be.
At the risk of joining the broken-record crowd the relevant question on the table would seem to remain, if Pheasant Ridge truly had 45 dpsm how is it possible that with 2 months of unimpeded access a sharpshooting organization with the resume of WB was unable to harvest an additional 14 deer? Or 1 for that matter?
Given their track record that outcome seems a lot more consistent with a much lower deer density than the one that has been argued for.
It keeps coming back to "what does the physical evidence tell me?"
It tells me you can't shoot what isn't there.
I don't think you mean Redding harvest has decreased annually by 50% since 2010 cause that would mean 2014 harvest would have been like 16 deer (hunters took 258 deer in 2010. 50% of that is 129, half that 64.5, half that 37.25, half that 16.125.) Hunter harvest in 2014 was down 40% from 2010. Yes. Is that "DRAMATIC"? Not really. Is it evidence of a marginally successful town-wide deer management program? Yes.
The answer should be worth my two apples, one pineapple and I will even throw in a mango !
Why do you so desperately want to know the reason we stopped sharpshooting? I mean one minute you are crying into your coffee at the transfer station whooping the boys into a frenzy about the poor deer and how we must stop WB. And now you are hounding me here about why we only took 11 deer in 2015. Which is it? Why do you care the reason we stopped? Are you just bummed you weren't able to break in your new body armor and try out your new night vision, you know, to "keep an eye on White Buffalo?"
the DEEP report shows 310 deer killed in TOTAL for 2010, so I have no idea why you're subtracting the deer kills by cars? Isn't that a HUGE part of the justification for bringing in WB?? That and lyme disease? You have to live and die by the numbers doc.
Now - why didn't WB kill more deer if there are 45 dpsm?? Answer please!
refusing to answer a simply question shows your true colors and intent on this site. You're not here to educate and be part of the hunting community, you're here to defend and advance an agenda; one that includes your good friend Tony (WB) and the money to be made shooting deer.
The 3 year study will not solve the deer/tick/lyme/car strike/shrub problems in Redding or anywhere else since, as your friend Tony stated - This is not a one and done process, it's like cutting the grass, you need to do it every few years to maintain the herd at acceptable levels."
Since I don't hunt SW CT my only reason for trying to learn what was happening there was to understand possible future plans for the rest of the state. I pray your plans don't spread to my hunting grounds.
I think this was a total waste of taxpayer money! (MY Federal money) I wonder if the people in Redding were told that WB would NOT correct their problems with deer, that they would have come up with more money every few years if they expected the deer/lyme'car/etc problems to be reduced.
Instead of educating the general public about lyme disease and checking yourself for ticks, you embark on a study that can NOT provide a solution to the problem, since reducing deer in one - three years will not eliminate all ticks. In fact, killing all the deer will not eliminate all ticks, and you only need one to give you lyme disease.
So at best you can say that less deer equals less lyme disease immediately after the last deer is killed in the 3 year study. But in year 4 and on, the town is right back to where they started, with more car strikes, lyme disease, eaten shrubs, etc, etc. and our money is gone.
Why did WB not kill more deer? Still waiting.
Here's how I see it. You can refuse to answer, then those of us reading these threads will realize you have something to hide and any credibility you had will be lost. Or, you can answer it honestly, and even if it doesn't support your case, at least we'll know that you're willing to present all the facts, not just those that work in your favor and more credibility will be given to your other statements.
You decide.
Now get ready, here it comes, I'm gonna answer the question. Ready?? Are you sure? Wait a second, I already answered it previously, but here is goes again. Ready??????? Are you sure? Wait for it. . .
This falls right in line with a section of the Northeast Section of the Wildlife Society’s Position Statement on the Management of Chronically Overabundant Deer I am coordinating: “Deer management action in developed communities must begin with the most basic question, “Is there a problem?” If a community cannot agree on whether a problem exists, there should be no expectation of agreement on management action.”
Now I'm ready to have an honest and adult conversation with my 6 yr old grandson.
If you made the choice to call off WB, then any impact of that choice on your study is your fault, not the fault of the public, agree?
In other words you can't now claim that the hunters or neighbors undermined your efforts or the study in some way.
I am clearly not a scientist, but let me ask you this. Can the tick study be seen as a beta test of some kind not only about the raw numbers but about public opinion and reaction? In other words should both the positive and negative feedback your getting and the impact of that feedback on the deer culling portion of your study, part and impact both negatively and positively on the study legitimate factors from a scientific point of view?
I would venture to guess that the social impact of this study would be similar wherever elsewhere if deer culling is utilized as a means for tick control, so will the social reactions you have gotten be considered with the measurement of other data.
Should the social reaction be treated with the same detached neutral scientific method as the raw data when determining whether or not deer culling is a path forward toward lyme disease reduction?
I think the social impact/reaction should be considered in the same scientific way as the other data, but I don't know if it is part of the normal scientific method in these kind of studies.
If you do a little research on WB you'll find they have met with much worse opposition in some states than what they felt in CT. There have been demonstrations, marches, video tapes made of wounded deer, people offering $1000 to the landowners to rescind participation with WB, and they still are able to go from state to state telling their tale of "Kill the Deer to Save the Children!". I'll wager that CAES and the DEEP could care less what social impact this has had in the state.
Dr Williams
you make yourself the fool when you say you're a scientist but refuse to provide a simple answer to a simple question. Any true scientist (Doctor) would argue the facts, and not let emotion get in the way, but it seems you would rather promote your agenda by refusing to share facts that would hurt your case. What other conclusion could one come to?
- I want the truth!
- You can't handle the truth!
For example, I am sure the study takes into account naturally occuring factors that can impact results. I am just making this up, but weather could be factor, foliage, flooding, temperature, other animals, etc.
Since this study doesn't take place in a closed laboratory, but in a social setting, I wonder if the human element is treated say the same as weather, and if not, why not.
Doc seems to be fighting the human as a possible detriment to the study, I am wondering why that is? Maybe the human element shouldn't be fought but should be treated neutrally and factored in the same way as other variables.
If Doc has someone following him around and calling his superiors as a result of the study, or blogging, or lobbying against it or vice versa, as a scientist don't fight the social reaction, just factor it in like any other naturally occurring variable the study has to take into account.
Maybe science doesn't work that way, I don't know.
got it, didn't quite understand the point, now it's clear.
I have to say that Doc uses the social impact as an excuse for not meeting the deer kill quota that they set out. He stated several times that because other bait piles were set up by hunters it caused deer to be pulled out of the test sites. Although he also said that HIS baits would NOT pull deer from other areas into the test sites, that deer don't move out of their home range, so not sure how you factor in both criteria??
You wouldn't use rain as an excuse or view it negatively, it is just another variable that has to be taken into account.
I guess I see this as much a social study as it is a biological study given the context and location. If the study was being done 100 miles from the nearest person, then it would be different. This is a neighborhood study. The reactions and actions of people should be part of it.
You wouldn't use rain as an excuse or view it negatively, it is just another variable that has to be taken into account.
I guess I see this as much a social study as it is a biological study given the context and location. If the study was being done 100 miles from the nearest person, then it would be different. This is a neighborhood study. The reactions and actions of people should be part of it.
For the benefit of our readers some clarifications; you were not being “trailed”; Scot Sanford encountered you in one location while completing plowing jobs; his daughter was with him on this occasion and can corroborate this account.
The other gentlemen you encountered was Mr. John Tucker who was also in the area and who pulled into a neighboring driveway to let you pass due to the narrow road; Interestingly Mr. Tucker made mention of knowing you from the DEEP meeting at Putnam Park and according to him you denied your identity.
I'll post direct comments from Scot Sanford now to add a bit more context:
"Mr Williams, with all due respect I would not waste my time following you around Redding or interacting with you in any way shape or form. You are not a celebrity and are of no importance to me!
I was checking driveways in the area I plow and yes, that yellow thing on the front of the pickup is a snow plow. Stop blaming everyone else and stick to the truth that there are not the deer in Redding you have been saying there are. You and your buddies at White Buffalo are not needed or welcome in this town."
Scot Sanford
I guess what we have been offered is the adult version of "my dog ate my homework".
It doesn't hold water in light of the additional information listed above and even absent that would strain credibility. That answer could have been posted weeks ago and there is no rational explanation for why it was witheld until now.
Toonces,
In any experiment every effort is made to identify all potential variables and account for them. The effects or impacts of some may be known at the onset, the effects or impacts of some though may not be known and capable of being quantified until after the fact.
As WB has encountered resistance in the past and by all accounts, much worse, it would be hard to make the case that this impact could not have been either expected or factored in.
In a nutshell neither an explanation or an answer was given, just a rather lame excuse.
So remember that pie chart in the link about public ownership of wildlife I posted? If not, it showed 5% of Americans hunt, 16% are anti-hunters, and 79% kind of don't have an opinion. So in the case of Redding, what % of those 79% of undecided people did hunters just piss off and turn into anti-hunters? "I don't care about the hunters, I don't want my kids to get sick" is what we hear in Redding time and time again when conversing with homeowners. Now if the CT wildlife are owned and managed by the CT public, don't you think hunters would want to work for those 79% of people and help reduce diseases in their kids? Isn't that a better tactic than pissing them off and advocating for more deer on the landscape to kill when there are already plenty?
Bloodtrail, you took the words right out of my mouth.
Bob. The way all you guys were hounding me for the answer why we didn't kill more deer was a) ridiculous given the "don't kill the deer" song and dance of old and b) the answer was not very exciting, (except for Glen who forwarded it along to others who he thinks are bad ass.). And I said that bait sites wouldn't draw deer many miles from across town. Remember? And then you went off about deer moving 13 miles in NW CT? Remember? Your selective memory of documented conversations seems to frequently favor your own arguments.
Lying about deer density. . . Are we back there again? What do I possibly have to gain in doing that? Hell, Larry and I provided you guys maps where they are! If the deer aren't there and I'm lying, how did Siburn count 45 deer/sm at Sunset Ridge/Huntington SP? He must be in on it too.
the FACT of the deer moving 13 miles was from the DEEP study in the NW corner using radio collars, so I have no idea what your point is other than the DEEP doesn't know what they're talking about. You stated your bait piles wouldn't pull deer from miles away and I pointed out the study where deer do in fact move more than a few hundred yard from their home range, so stick to one story. Do they move or not?? You're the one trying to change the facts to suit your story, not me.
It took all this time to think up the EXCUSE that someone driving in truck screwed up WB from killing more deer???? Are F--king kidding me!! Your answer shows your udder contempt for the intelligence of your audience.
And the question had nothing to do with "Don't kill the deer"!!! It was intended to uncover why WB couldn't kill more deer! And by the way, nothing you say is exciting, so don't flatter yourself.
And stop the I'm scientist crap, it carries no weight when you can't answer a simple question honestly. I think you should go find out if Pluto is a planet or if the next ice age coming with your other "scientists" buddies.
You've covered things pretty well but I wanted to weigh in with a few observations:
1. Regarding the selective use of facts to suit your needs; when the issue of baiting on the periphery of study areas was brought up to Scott it was just as quickly pooh-poohed by him; flash-forward to the discussions of why WB couldn't kill more deer and what was one point of cover Scott offered up? You guessed it-competing bait sites.
Therein lies the rub; either bait will pull in deer when the CAES places it and it will likewise pull deer in to competing sites OR neither site will pull in deer. The effect should always be the same; Scott is trying to have it both ways; his baiting did not draw in deer from outside the study areas but "interfering hunters" competing bait sites drew deer out of the study areas.
Hypocrisy serves as poor mortar for the foundation of any argument.
2. The false dilemna; hunters don't want deer killed, but hunters are angry that WB didn't kill more deer. The first half is obviously true, the second is a false dilemna and self-serving tripe.
The two are not related to each other in any way; to attempt to link them together in this way is a transparently disingenous attempt to recast an argument in a manner that Scott thinks he can win. Hunters can maintain their position against deer killing and ask a legitimate question as to why WB failed to fulfill the terms of their contract.
As Yoda would say "the hypocrisy is strong with this one."
When you can't frame an argument honestly Scott it doesn't benefit anyone, least of all you. If you feel victimized you should; by self-inflicted wounds.
What do hunters want? Do they even know anymore? Or do they just react?
YES - I asked several times why WB didn't kill the deer that CAES said had to be killed to save the children in Redding, but as Mike pointed out it doesn't mean I want them killed, it means I want to know why they weren't killed. Is that concept too difficult to wrap your scientific mind around. Wow, got to explain everything 5 times for you to understand things.
I suggest you go back to counting ticks because you're really startng to bug me. :)
Just kidding!!! I actually like having you on the site, you're funny. I haven't been this entertained since my grandson was trying to explain where babies came from. The only difference is he made more sense and answered every question we asked him. I'm not sure we laughed any harder at his explanations than I have with yours so please stay around.
Are you going to start any new projects because this thread is getting a bit old and boring. I'd love to hear what other projects the CAES is attacking next in the exciting world of the bug "SCIENTISTS". Maybe you could tell us all about the Emerald Ash Borer and the impact it has on the ash trees in CT?
Still don't why WB couldn't find more keer to kill.
Again. I said that I had said previously that bait is not going to pull a deer from across Town and used the deer moving 13 miles to jog your memory about that same conversation we had had previously. Obviously bait piles congregate deer, but seldom, if ever, do they pull deer the incredible distances you are talking about was my point. And I think that that was obvious to most everybody else reading this thread because it was perfectly clear.
You either missed the point about #2 or don't want to concede it's validity; either way the false dilemna you present is that hunter's don't know what they want because the two points seem contradictory.
The first half is they (and you can use Glen as the example of "they") don't want deer killed when the herd (in their opinion) is collapsing.
To question why deer weren't killed doesn't contradict that point if it is posited as a counter to the claim of 45 dpsm. It is a totally separate position; basically it is asking, "OK, if you are correct then it should not have been a problem to take an additional 14 deer."
The secondary (and separate) issue boils down to "why do the facts (failure to take even a single deer) contradict your position on the number available?" The request for this to be explained is not tied to the first position of not wanting deer killed.
By trying to tie them together (create a false dilemna) it allows you to avoid answering the second half; whether this is merely perception and not reality, it is not an unfair assessment to make of your trying to cast them (the hunters) as being at crossed purposes.
To that end, the attempted linkage is self-serving; it makes the hunters appear as if they don't know what they want and it allows you to avoid the question.
If I want to converse?? You're the one refusing to answer a simple question and trying to deflect the conversation by changing topics or making a joke about it. And keeping up with what conversation? You don't say anything, so nothing to keep up with.
Mike - I don't think he understands that the 8 word question "why WB failed to take more deer" has nothing to do with whether or not hunters want the deer killed. Maybe he forgot that he told us that WB was going to kill the deer, and since they didn't we're all very confused?
I know! It must have been when the guys in the truck looked at him, that's why WB didn't kill the deer. Or maybe it was someone doing the same thing he was doing, putting bait piles out for the deer. I bet that never happened to WB before, so that had to make ALL of the deer in the entire town, even those 13 miles away, go to the other bait pile and not WB's. Damn, I hate when that happens. Or maybe it was the deer they didn't see in the FLIR survey, those were the deer that came to the bait pile and WB couldn't see them then either? This is so complicated.
I remember how in the beginning of this tale Dr Williams was telling all of the hunters how efficient WB was and how they could kill deer with a single shot to the head, and how they would bring the numbers down to the 12 dpsm (or whatever number) that is perfect to eliminate ticks, and how hunters could never do that - ever, and how this would make the public(?) in Redding so happy. But they didn't do it, did they? So now a new tale begins. This is like the Harry Potter movie series!! How exciting. "The Tale of the Missing Deer".
Where you and I differ is I don't see a the study as a failure if you don't reach your target goals.
Putting aside the dualing FLIR's for a moment and assuming your numbers are correct, you had a goal to get the study area at or under X deer per square mile.
The fact that you couldn't do it due to social headwinds is not a failure, it's a significant worthwhile result. A conclusion that given the parameters you had to work with, you got more than expected social pushback so that not being able to achieve your goal Deer per square mile is a solid finding. Your study shows that perhaps deer reduction in a suburban setting to levels that lower tick borne diseases is not possible. There is nothing wrong with that result and certainly no reason to cast negative blame on anyone for causing that result.
If you step back and look at the bigger picture, there is a lot to be learned from this study. Again, maybe not what you hoped, but you shouldn't let your own biases toward the outcome you hoped for, color your evaluation of the outcome you achieved.
Where you and I differ is I don't see a the study as a failure if you don't reach your target goals.
Putting aside the dualing FLIR's for a moment and assuming your numbers are correct, you had a goal to get the study area at or under X deer per square mile.
The fact that you couldn't do it due to social headwinds is not a failure, it's a significant worthwhile result. A conclusion that given the parameters you had to work with, you got more than expected social pushback so that achieving your goal Deer per square mile is a solid finding. Your study shows that perhaps deer reduction in a suburban setting to levels that lower tick borne diseases is not possible. There is nothing wrong with that result and certainly no reason to cast negative blame on anyone for causing that result.
If you step back and look at the bigger picture, there is a lot to be learned from this study. Again, maybe not what you hoped, but you shouldn't let your own biases toward the outcome you hoped for, color your evaluation of the outcome you achieved.
but you're leaving out one critical piece of DATA from the conversation. WB has gotten stiffer social headwinds in other states than in CT, and CAES knew this in advance of hiring WB since Tony and Scott are good friends. This was no surprise, this was business as usual for WB. So to say it was still a success is not true.
Dr Williams educated all of us early on how WB could do what hunters couldn't, knowing full well that there would people fighting their efforts and not just hunters, but friends of animal groups and the like. So only NOW, after the failure to meet the goal do they bring this issue to the fore front to use a defense. High powered rifles, bait piles, night vision, shooting at night and they still couldn't get the job done. REFUND please.
If WB got pushback when deer culling just for general population reduction purposes, I see that as different than a tick study.
No need for a refund in my opinion. This is a scientific and social study. Failure to reach a goal is a normal an acceptable outcome in scientific study. I just hope the failure isn't dismissed and ignored, we paid for that failure and we should learn from it. We should learn to not try the same thing again and expect different results. The social headwinds aren't likely to change on this.
But The main reason that deer densities could not be lowered enough was hunters advocating to keep deer densities high by any means possible. That to me seems like a selfish situation that could result in backlash from the non-hunting public, that might turn those on the fence against hunting. What really pissed me off through this whole thing were the lies, deceit, and false accusations about me, the study, and our subcontractors. That pissed a lot of other influential people off too and gave local hunters a really bad reputation. And if you think I'm sugar coating what happened when talking at conferences, with colleagues, and other biologists, I'm not. I'm telling it like it is. Hopefully the next generation of hunters will understand better how to keep hunting in the good graces of the public.
Where you and I differ is none of this should have "pissed you off". It's all just social data. As a scientist you shouldn't take it personally.
The feedback your getting, true or untrue, justified or not, is all part of the study in my opinion. Don't make any moral judgements about it anymore than you would make moral judgements about field mice carrying ticks.
If your complaining about what happened or "blaming" hunters for an outcome or disrupting the study when discussing this with your colleagues or the public, your viewing this study all wrong in my opinion. This isn't about blame.
I hope you never find out.
Can you just find a place that only has 10-12 DPSM?
I think down town stamford has about 12-14.
Again you seek to set up false equivalencies; hunters were never arguing for astronomically high deer densitites, they were arguing against drastic reductions in deer densities.
Once again you adopt the all-or-nothing approach and fail to see that there was (and still is) a very realistic middle ground.
What's selfish is one side or the other seeking to impose their paradigm to the exclusion of any other. If any hunter ever posted they would be against deer densities under 30-40 dpsm you'd have a valid point; the fact of the matter is no one here ever did.
Equally valid is the point of view that is consistent what Dr. DeNicola testified to during the Newtown deer hearings; that in inland settings anything less than 20-25 dpsm is simply unobtainable. Given that this has been public knowledge promoting a deer density of 10-12 in a similar (inland) setting was at best setting up a false hope and at worst a disingenous campaign. Neither option served the public interest.
Given the vast volume of literature that showed favorable outcomes in terms of Lyme disease incidence reduction that did not involve deer culls if any side can be painted as "selfish" it would be those advocating for deer culls to the levels (dpsm) targeted in the face of this evidence.
What I suspect you are taking personally and are "pissed off" about is that some people thought for themselves, refused to follow the herd and saw through the deception.
With regard to "influential people"; for the moment I'll rank that comment right up there with the nebulous "the public" that wants all deer killed; absent clarification it becomes a moot point. Until you provide some context it's a non sequitur that warrants no consideration whatsover.
As far as your peers, with all due respect I've seen more than my share of scientific snobbery when someone's sacred ox gets gored. Whenever you show a blatant disregard for valid concerns it shouldn't surprise you that animus is fostered. Again, a more open and up-front approach from day one could have abetted some, if not all of this.
Lastly, while you are perfectly entitled to you opinion on the future role of hunting your continued need to foist your new paradigm on everyone as the be-all, end-all is both self-serving and tiresome.
Hunting's demise will not come because one and all did not rush out to embrace the hunt behind every swingset sect; it will come about when denial of our ties to nature becomes the norm, something you seem hell-bent on not just fostering, but speeding up.
Forgive me for not embracing that brave new world.
This stuff may be your hobby, but lest you forget, it's my profession.
I'm touched by your concern about how I'm perceived on this forum, truly I am (sarcasm off).
I'm trying to wrap my head around what, in your mind, constitutes a "nasty attitude".
Perhaps it may have been when I correctly noted that you sent out a letter misreprenting the ITM study by referencing studies conducted in insular settings and then failing to disclose that those results were only achieved in an insular setting.
Perhaps it was when I correctly pointed out that the aerial transect method was never intended to be used as a true census tool.
Perhaps it was when I correctly noted that you were trying to have it both ways regarding the effect of baiting.
Perhaps it was when I correctly pointed out that you were attempting to create a false dilemna for the hunters who've opposed you by insisting that those hunters couldn't be concerned about deer eradication yet legitimately question why study goals weren't being met.
Perhaps it was when I correctly noted successful methodologies for lowering Lyme disease incidence that do not involve killing deer.
Or perhaps it was when I correctly pointed out your nonsensical comment about hunters wanting high deer densities for exactly what it was; a strawman argument when not one poster here has ever made that claim.
No, you needn't trouble yourself about how I'm perceived around here. You see Scott, I've been posting here since 1998 and not only have I gotten acquainted with many of the regulars, I've met a good many and known a good many for years.
Those people know I don't pick fights and I don't take one up without good cause.
They also know I've posted under my name from day one; I didn't slink in through the back door and post under an assumed name.
Glass houses......stones......
Well said and correct on every point.
I can assure you my resolve is every bit as steadfast in person as it is "behind that keyboard."
Perhaps you'd like the opportunity to test that statement?
Lol
And he says you're full of yourself? Coming from the great, and all mighty powerful OZ scientist who understand wildlife management and research. His arm must be pretty long to pat himself on the back. Isn't he also the same guy who had to hide behind an alias because he was too frightened to play with us under his real name,...talk about a keyboard bully.
