Bowsite.com

Ace, one involves a bag of ice the other is singing high notes...lol

Glen. That's some good math skills. What's your point? The mayor put the project out to bid with that price tag and WB put forth their proposal and were selected. Good for them. How about those survey results you promised? Or did you not waste your money because you realized single digit deer densities in Zone 11 is preposterous?

I have no idea if the price the city is paying is a good value, it very well may be. I also don't have any idea how effective this process will be, time will tell, It very well may be.

However there are a lot of smoke and mirrors with a bid process, I do know that just because there was a bid, doesn't necessarily mean the best value was received.

Thanks for the link Glen. This was my favorite part:

"There are way deer more than you think. Aerial surveys for wildlife are designed to work by observers counting animals in a given area, say 1 square mile, then interpolating those numbers to additional, similar areas that were not surveyed, such as another 10 square miles. Observers, however, do not see all of the animals.

This is inherently true for just about any type of wildlife survey because it is completely possible to miss animals that are present in the environment. Deer can stay bedded down, simply be out of view and can avoid detection by moving away from observers. Surveys are critically important for managing wildlife populations, but most biologists acknowledge that surveys typically result in an estimate of the “minimum population size,” for the reasons outlined above.

Depending on the survey method used, the estimated population can be significantly lower than the actual population. This is especially true for aerial surveys, where a number of factors must be considered. If surveyors observed 763 deer in 2014 then the Staten Island deer population consists of least 1,500 animals now. In short, the scope of the work is much larger than they think."

Scotty - so do you really expect us to believe that your good friend and former partner DeNicola of "Kill 'em All WB" will be able to find and de-nut every single buck on the island? REALLY?! What about the ones that hide from the spotters in the airplanes? Is he going to find them as well and get close enough with a dart gun to make them sing soprano?

Put your boots on guys, here comes the manure man defending his good pay Tony! Follow the money boys, just follow the money. $2 mil and he's a non-profit!!!

This is going to be fun.

And for the guys that don't like reading this post - please ignore it.

And I like this part of the article, but then again it doesn't promote your good friend Tony's agenda, does it?

Notice the key words "STUPID" and "RIDICULOUS" to describe DeNicola's plan.

"It's difficult for me to come up with all the reasons why this is a really stupid plan," said Bernd Blossey, a ecologist at Cornell University who consulted City Hall on deer management strategies in November. "It's ridiculous from the onset."

your buddy Tony couldn't do it in Redding with high powered rifles at night over bait, and now you want us to believe and he can use a low powered dart gun and get every single buck on the island??!! Come on Scott, you can do better than that.

Threatened?? Not at all. Just another example of our hard earned dollars going to a failed government program, like your tick study. Yes, we all know that Tony couldn't get it done because someone was watching his guys. Wonder how many of those half million people on the island will be in his way while he tries to get within a few yards of every buck to dart them?

Alternatives - I can offer plenty of other stupid, ridiculous alternatives. Poison them, make the landowners clear all edible vegetation, shoot with them with poison darts, cross bow at night over bait, bring in more coyotes and bobcats or you can conduct another tick study on the island so you can get some of that money being offered. All pretty stupid, right??

So Tony is going to de-nut some of the bucks and then let them go. So the island still has the same 1000 deer running into cars causing accidents? Great idea! The bucks he couldn't find will breed, and the following seasons will see more and more bucks with nuts. How much money can your budding Tony in the upcoming years? Plenty with this scheme.

This is like getting the phone call from Apu saying he's from Microsoft Support, and I have a problem on my computer. Just tell me your charge card number and I'll fix it for you. RIGHT!

That goes without saying, but the trick is to offer reasonable alternatives. got any?

I think you are directing your ire at the wrong party, Seems to me the mayor of NY should be the focal point of your disdain. After all, NY sets the table with their regulations. Seems to me that W/B is working with what they have been given.

Here's the problem that I have. It doesn't appear that anyone has the facts on this. You don't know the terms and conditions of the bid specs, You don't know the details of the discussions prior to the bid being implemented. You don't know what W/B was told they can and cannot do by the City. This very well may be the best choice they had available to them. It's real easy to second guess but at least do it with all the facts. And guys, Google Vasectomy and Castration. You should know the difference so you don't keep embarrassing yourselves

I don't blame WB for taking the $2 mil of taxpayer money and running with it! I didn't blame them when Scotty gave his friend Tony the money in CT for his failed tick study. Tony's got a nice racket going and getting paid a lot of money for it. I blame the politicians for offering it.

For all of you that think this is the BEST option just answer one question. Will it work? Do you really think ANYONE can find every single buck on the island? All of them? Not miss that one behind the bush? REALLY???

If your answer is no then why spend $2 mil of taxpayer money for another failed government program? How's that Obama Care working for you?

BB - this program was already labeled stupid and ridiculous, not by me but a Cornell ecologist. So how about we discount this plan as quickly as you discounted my suggestions? They are ALL equally stupid and ridiculous, no argument from me on that point.

As for my use of the term "de-nut" let me apologize for using slang" to communicate my thought in a sophomoric manner. I find it fun at times to add a bit of humor to my posts. I don't take myself seriously, I encourage others to do the same.

" The above article was corrected to reflect that DeNicola and his team plan to lure the deer to spots across Staten Island using up to $30,000 in whole kernel corn bait, not $300,000 worth. "

Now they just need to realize their second mistake and not let White Buffalo get involved with, Staten Island Deer issues.

We have requested the FLIR survey results that were done on Staten Island the second week of February 2016 and will post the results if and when received.

I should have used my mind reading technique.

"So how about we discount this plan as quickly as you discounted my suggestions? "

I didn't discount any plan. I don't know enough about any of them to discount. They are only stupid if they prove to be stupid. I'd say you best hope the plans don't work, then everyone will think you're a genius.

You don't need to spend $2 mil of the taxpayers money to decide if this plan is stupid or not. I would just apply some common sense and ask yourself what I've asked several times already - "Do you really think anyone can find every single buck on the island and get close enough to dart them? EVERY SINGLE BUCK?"

And don't forget, after they're de-nutted (there I go again, where' my dictionary?) they are returned to roam the city streets and run into cars, so what problem did we solve here? I know, we solved how to get Tony $2 mil for sterilizing a few hundred deer. Nice work if you can get, and yes I'm jealous.

I still need my Kreskin powers when I'm reading your posts.

Suppose the NY Wildlife biologist decided that this is the method that will be used to solve the cities problem.based on a number of considerations. The city puts out a bid and the bid specs are very specific. Do you A. ignore the bid because Bigbuck Bob determines that it's not appropriate and stupid? or do you B, Bid the job per the specs?

I participate in a lot of Public bids...Many. Often the specs are already determined. They often aren't the best value but by the time the bid comes out the discussion is done. There is often a better way to do what the owner wants. But If you are going to bid, you bid per the specs.

You may not like W/B but They may not have had anything to do with the way this worked out. Ever do any work in the city? there are a lot of factors that drive the cost of any project higher. from all the cash you have to pay people that won't let you carry a tool up a flight of stairs without paying them, to parking to you name it, everyone has their hand in your pocket. So when you determine that your $30,000.00 price for corn is exorbitant, just consider where this is taking place. As I stated before, you are likely mis-directing your whinning. Municipalities are requiring all kinds of crazy conditions for contractors which drive the prices up ridiculously high, such as hiring local people at the expense of your employees. certain percentage of minorities have to be employed, certain percentage of disadvantaged people have to be hired. Regardless of skill level. I just went through this in Waterbury. Prevailing wage or union labor has to be paid, There are all kinds of landmines built into bids that can more than double the normal cost of a similar project .

please show me where I stated that I blameWB and I blame for the Staten Island mess in this thread? I did state that there's no way WB or any other organization could possible capture and de-nut all of the bucks. I also said the politicians and the government are to blame for spending $2 mil so no need to channel Kreskin since this is a simple matter of our government wasting taxpayer money.

BTW - I'm a purchasing manager at a fortune 500 company and have been involved with material management for 43 years, so I know just a little bit about how RFQs and the bidding process works. I've never dealt with a government body, thank goodness, but I know who writes the specs and what's expected of the vendors bidding the jobs.

So, just to be clear - my concern (Whining as some call it) is that our government is spending $2 mil of the taxpayers money on another failed program.

you make a great point about accounting for each buck that is sterilized, but I'm guessing (wasn't in the article) that a tag would be placed on the ear of each buck treated.

They can't do it after the rut because then they'll need to return to get the new born bucks in the spring, and the cycle repeats itself. And if they do it in late summer early fall there's plenty of other food sources to keep the bucks away from the dart gun.

If the area is so crowded with people and buildings that a crossbow wouldn't work, what will happen when the buck runs away after being darted? Runs into a highway? Lost never to be found?

Also remember - the problem is too many deer causing a safety concern for car/deer crashes. They're going to release the treated buck back to the population = same qty of deer to run into cars. How does this solve the problem in the short term?

"Put your boots on guys, here comes the manure man defending his good pay Tony! Follow the money boys, just follow the money. $2 mil and he's a non-profit!!!"

Maybe I need to keep the Kreskin powers in play to figure out who you blame here, because to me it's not overly clear.

"BTW - I'm a purchasing manager at a fortune 500 company and have been involved with material management for 43 years, so I know just a little bit about how RFQs and the bidding process works. I've never dealt with a government body, thank goodness, but I know who writes the specs and what's expected of the vendors bidding the jobs."

Until now, no one could have guessed. The contents of your posts wouldn't lead anyone to believe that you know anything about the process.

Do you ever participate in public bids from the state or municipalities where there is state money involved? If you want an eye opener, read some of the bid specs that are put out by the state. You can get a good idea if you go to the DAS website.

bb's right about state/city bids..theres so much crap hidden in the specs its almost like they want the little guys not to bid..a normal $250-300 t per sq.tear off now balloons to $500+ cause of the added crap.

What are we as hunters doing wrong, that people are so scared of "us", that they would rather do something like this, than figure out how to have a controlled hunt?

I mean, ok, some areas maybe it's just not safe to discharge a firearm... but if you can safely fling darts, it seems a bow should be ok.

How did "we" become such a touchy subject and a "group" that inspires enough lack of confidence in people that a group who has to be at least of average intelligence would rather attempt what amounts to mass sterilization vs allowing there "neighbors" to do the job. The "neighbors" would actually PAY the state to do the "job".

Never really hit me before. But overall, this just seems to be a bigger issue to me than the project being discussed.

I mean, if the folks of staten island want to attempt to do this and are willing to pay for it, that's their deal. The bigger issue to me, is what that mentality means for "us".

Not good.

Will

And I already stated that I don't deal with government (that would be the cities, state or federal). No idea what that has to do with my comments that the plan is stupid and ridiculous anyway. Are you saying that because the City of NY gave the bidders a stupid & ridiculous spec it's ok?? It's a good plan?? That's what this argument about, not how a bid process works.

So get back to the point of this thread and answer the question - do you think WB will find every single buck on the island? Do you think it makes sense to release the bucks back into the environment after sterilization?

not sure it's the image of hunters alone that's the problem. I think it's also the animal rights people and the politicians being afraid of the backlash around anyone KILLING the pretty deer.

I said at the start of this thread that you should read the posts on the article, almost all are from tree hugger types saying the deer should be picked up and moved, or just leave them alone because they have as much right to be there as people.

Think about how many years deer live and how long it will take for this plan to take effect.

It's not really apparent to me based on the posts I'm reading who you aren't happy with, It looks to me like you aren't Happy with both "Scotty" and "DiNicola"

"So get back to the point of this thread and answer the question - do you think WB will find every single buck on the island? Do you think it makes sense to release the bucks back into the environment after sterilization?"

The only answer I'm going to give at this point is this, I have my doubts as to it's viability. However, I'm willing to let this run it's course, like I said, it's only stupid if it proves to be stupid. I'm not qualified to be able to second guess the process as I don't have enough information to do much second guessing. Something tells me your qualifications run parallel with mine.

People don't like the concept of killing animals. It's nothing that was done specifically other than the end result is a dead animal.

As for WB and Scott - Scott only comes on this site to promote his agenda, nothing else. He's never posted a thread about hunting that I've seen, just his tick study. As for WB - they're a tool. They're doing a job and if someone hires them so be it,....I could less. However, I would never promote the idea of getting paid to kill deer, and that's what he does. I'll leave it at that.

I've given you my opinion. It's also my opinion that you are borderline Hysterical.

I was just trying to reply to your post, not hysterical at all, unless you mean like "hysterical funny"?

My intent was not upset you, just like to find out what others think. I find it hard to believe that others don't find this topic interesting considering NYC plan involves finding every buck in the woods.

Have a good day.

I'm not upset in the least. i'm just poking at you because I think you need it.

You're like a hysterical old woman.

I never take anything personal. I know I can push people's buttons at times (sometimes on purpose) and my communication skills on the keyboard suck (as you so aptly pointed out).

Now where did Scott go?

"And I already stated that I don't deal with government (that would be the cities, state or federal). No idea what that has to do with my comments that the plan is stupid and ridiculous anyway. Are you saying that because the City of NY gave the bidders a stupid & ridiculous spec it's ok?? It's a good plan?? That's what this argument about, not how a bid process works."

Well you made the point to tell me you are a buyer for a fortune 500 company and are familiar with bid processes. So knowing that that really has nothing to do with government public bids, I directed you to the DAS website for some enlightenment.

What it has to do with is that based on the assumption that you are unhappy with DiNicola/WB for bidding and winning a public bid put out by NY City and obviously feel he is somehow driving the exorbitant price and presumably doing some underhanded things, based on reading your comments about him/them, I felt it was worth pointing out that even if you are the one working with the government agency to put the bid spec together, they have their own boilerplate language and requirements over and above the scope of work which can can blindside you with nonsensical stuff that has nothing to do with completing the project and drives the cost up 3 fold.

I'm not saying it's a good deal for anyone, I'm not making that assesment either good or bad. What I am saying is that just because you feel it's a bad deal and a bad idea, w/B or anyone else isn't necessarily the blame for that, they may very well be just the victim of a bad bid spec that they have to work with. They have two choices, either walk away from it or comply with it.

Generally if you are in business, even if it's non profit, you comply unless of course you run too great a risk of losing money, that's usually the only time companies walk away from these things.

This is really a pretty basic concept that shouldn't require me to go into this much detail to explain.

Will, you nailed it. Why are towns and municipalities seeking out firms like WB and not hunters? Because hunters blame everyone else and point fingers why deer surveys are wrong, blame government conspiracies, and claim everyone else is wrong. If they were smart, they would look inward and say to themselves, "how can we make ourselves more marketable and what can we learn from firms like WB?" In this case unfortunately, even arrow discharge is prohibited. But you are on the right track. Look inward and you will find ample opportunity landing in your lap.

BB. You got it brother. This surgical procedure has been done on many many deer in the past. It has not yet been shown to work by itself as a successful population control technique. But we will see!

What you guys need to remember is that sterile bucks don't know they are sterile and will compete just like normal with fertile animals to breed does. Does will cycle a couple extra times, but not all the way through winter.

Doc - I NEVER said it was MY money being used for the Staten Island project, unless you're referring to my reference about your failed tick study that I mentioned and yes, that was my FEDERAL tax money.

You say this surgical procedure was done on many deer in the past, but your good friend Tony stated in the article that this process is new, and has never been tried before??? Which is it???

And I didn't spout nonsense that this process was stupid and ridiculous, I was repeating what a Cornell ecologist stated about the plan, I just happen to agree. This is just not BBB finding fault with another "destined to fail" government program.

And sterile bucks will still run into cars causing accidents, so how does this reduce the problem short term? And still, no one has answered the question - Do you really think ANYONE can find and dart every single buck on the island???? chirp, chirp

Answer please?

And when you resort to name calling I know you have nothing factual to argue your point. I suggest you leave that on school yard and try to have a mature discussion.

No, but who said anything about darting every single buck on the island? Its population reduction in the long term not eradication. You are looking at the short term when you say that same buck could get released and then hit by a car. As the Dr. said, sterilized males will still compete and breed with does. The hope is that the does will cycle a couple of times and that there are enough sterilized bucks so that the doe doesn't actually get fertilized.

...and by the way, I don't agree with this technique, just adding my 2 cents. I feel vasectomies should be saved for all the human males on the island:) However, I agree that it will be interesting to see the results from afar.

Maybe they should dart them and move them to Redding so we can get over the "single digit" deer densities...lol

love the idea of moving them to Redding, kill two birds with one stone,....best alternative idea yet.

I understand this is a long term program, but if you lived on the island would you want to spend that kind of money year after year after year to maintain a low deer herd. The doe will continue to get bred, at lower rate at first, but once the program stops, then what?? Another $2 mil and then another $2 mil.

I don't have skin in the game either, but as a taxpayer I'm amazed at how easily the politicians spend the taxpayers money on silly programs like this.

Steve - I don't think you'll need to live a long time because once the program stops the herd will rebound, just like it will in Redding.

I'm still curious what your suggestion for a successful program is.

Where did I say sterilizing will INCREASE a buck's chance of being hit by a car. Back to telling lies Doc, not nice. I said they're going to release them back into population where they can still play in traffic.

My suggestion: save the taxpayer's $2 mil for a failed program and improve the schools. The only financially sound solution is to have others pay to remove the deer and keep the meat. How far will a deer run after being darted? Far enough to hit a car? I say a crossbow will yield a shorter run and is just as safe if done with proper restrictions. You know, like high powered rifles at night!

I don't need to own property in NYC to recognize a waste of taxpayers money.

Type lies and bogosity on Bowsite and POOF, it's true. For more lies, tune into Airrow's posts on Bowsite, brought to you by FoxNews, Fair and Balanced.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Staten+Island,+NY/@40.577781,-74.1731127,14065m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c245ef79f4d4e7:0x50271f8534babc78!8m2!3d40.5795317!4d-74.1502007

guess nothing is biting in Canada on your fishing trip?

Is darting of deer legal on the island? Is that is the management book? No of course not. But if the government says it's ok, you know like using high powered rifles at night in Redding, then it's legal, right?

So follow me here, if the city of NY says crossbows at night over bait are legal as a one time deer reduction method, that would be legal too. See, not complicated at all.

Airrow was trying to make same point. When a deer reduction program is in place it's not covered by the normal game laws. So using corn is ok. Just like a watershed that is usually closed to hunting allows a one time deer reduction program.

In the absence of significant mortality, deer populations can double in size in two years, according to Howard Kilpatrick, a biologist in the Department of Environmental Protection's Wildlife Division.

If we start with 24 deer on Staten Island in 2008 and the deer herd doubles every two years our deer population would be - 192 deer in 2014. If we are to believe that the deer population on Staten Island in 2014 is - 763 deer; 571 of those deer or 74.83% came from outside of Staten Island.

This practice is noting new, CT has been doing it for the past 15 years....stating they have 3X-4X the number of deer that are actually there.

Bob. The NYC chief of police said no way to weapons discharge. Period. And said yes to darts from dart guns, which are not considered a weapon or a firearm. So you still think that hunting is the solution, at night, over bait, using crossbows in NYC to reducing deer? Are you completely delusional? This is New York City we are talking about. Right? So we are on the same page?

And here we go again with Glen's campaign that everyone else is involved in a conspiracy to inflate deer density. So old and so played. New strategy needed.

I'm only responding to your posts and comments, Perhaps you should curtail some of your comments if you dont like the responses

no, no, no. You're not just responding to my posts. It took me several tries just to get you to answer the question about the proposed program and then you resorted to name calling.

When I argue a point with someone and they start saying you're a crazy old lady or ignorant of the facts (strange how opinions can become facts to some) then I know the other person has run out of logical responses, so resort to personal attacks.

Like I said before, I don't get offended it's just your way of arguing a point. Not very mature, but it's your way.

Scotty and BB - bottomline for me, this program won't work. There are no facts to argue about concerning this program, it's all opinion since it's never been done before. My opinion is it's a failure waiting to happen. Let's see who's right.

And I didn't say you're NOT responding to my post. You need to stop, take a breath and re-read.

"You're not just responding to my posts". This means that along with responding you're name calling.

sincerely - Crazy old lady

I've had phone conversations with a few of the guys on the site, and they will tell you I like to argue points that strike me as interesting, and taxpayers' money is one topic that is near and dear to my heart.

I think we exhausted this thread anyway. At least I think I have.

Scotty - how about you? Any parting comments?

As for this whole plan. Seems to me, that situations like this would have to seek out exemptions to normal rules. It's not hunting. It's some place between a wildlife "management" experiment and a public safety issue.

As a result, it seems we cant apply normal logic or rules from a hunting direction to this kind of situation. Doing so feels like saying oranges taste great so potato's suck. Very little to do with one another overall.

So long as the community is ok with the expenditure of the money, I have no issue with it.

People pay for the "greater good" all the time - it's the brutal reality of taxes. Ultimately "we" wouldnt pay for the "greater good" unless "we" were forced to. It's frustrating when you see so much dang waste at various government levels... but ultimately, "we" tend to be to selfish to truly help the greater good so "we" were forced to pay taxes to a government. Note I'm not saying "we" as in those in this discussion, I'm talking about society on a whole.

No, I'm not a Bernie guy. I'm self employed and feel the literal BURN when I attempt to pay myself through out the year due to paying for "the greater good" - and the resulting waste.

My point though, is that, sadly, "most" people wouldnt even pay to the greater good if it was solely for police and fire and military. So would they pay for it so they stopped having collisions with deer while driving or losing landscaping etc? No way. Only the craziest would volunteer that unless they were directly and strongly related (totaled a few cars hitting deer).

I dont mean to digress to ridiculous levels...

Overall, I strongly dislike the concept of this type of thing overall. I get some situations just are not reasonably safe to implement hunting... but people start to see this approach as viable in place of hunting and we are in deep sneakers over the next few decades. Ugh.

But, if staten island has the budget, and wants to hire someone to reduce the deer population on the island... That's on them. I can disagree with the concept... But in this case, I dont have an alternative to the challenge they have from a public safety perspective. Not sure anyone else does either, which is why "they" came to the conclusion that this approach was all they could do.

So the crazy part is accurate?

I think it has a better ring than Bigbuck bob...but that's just me.

"Scotty - so do you really expect us to believe"

"Scotty your buddy Tony couldn't do it in Redding"

"And when you resort to name calling I know you have nothing factual to argue your point. I suggest you leave that on school yard and try to have a mature discussion."

"You're not just responding to my posts". This means that along with responding you're name calling."

No, not at all. I love a good argument. Name calling is just a pet peeve on mine because it takes away from any serious conversation and turns into personal attacks.

"Makes no sense when you don't know the other person. I am old, 65, but not a lady. And remember, with age comes wisdom."

I was going to let this go, but I think I should point this out. I find this very ironic, Bob. I'm pretty sure, in fact I would bet my last nickel that addressing the Doc as "Scotty" is not meant as a term of endearment. In fact it strikes me as being and intended to be very condesending especially since I highly doubt you are on a very personal level with the Doc. At the very least it's intended to be disrespectful.

So I wouldn't be portraying such a holier....attitude, at least if you are going to talk the talk then walk the walk.. At what point does your age actually begin to produce wisdom?

And I don't portray a holier than thou attitude, I merely stated I don't like name calling. I sense you have a twinge of guilt.

I thought this thread was about the Staten Island project?

Indiana stated that deer sterilization was - "costly, requires annual maintenance, IDNR does not support this method in free-ranging environments, and because this technique is not approved by the IDNR in free-ranging environment and is costly, this is not a viable option."

Spin it anyway you want but I doubt you could convince anyone that that was intended as anything but derrogatory.

A twinge of guilt? ...Nah, I freely admit guilt. That was intended as a jab at you, It was said in jest but a jab nevertheless.

As for Mr. Williams - I've used Scott, Scotty, Doc, Dr Williams, etc. Still don't understand why you think I'm trying to show disrespect, but I guess that's your problem to figure out, not mine.

And in my world, people earn respect, they don't get as part of a higher education degree. It didn't say anything on my diploma about "This entitles the bearer to RESPECT"

BTW - I'm starting to understand what your handle "BB" stands for. :)

Well it could be worse, there are several other substitutions for Old lady I can think of.

"BTW - I'm starting to understand what your handle "BB" stands for. :)"

Just so you don't feel special, I'm all about equal opportunity, No one is immune, especially my best friends.

I was hoping to get a reaction about the sterilization plan in Indiana being shot down due to it being too costly, requiring yearly maintenance and not viable.

How about a cattle drive across the water back to NJ where the deer probably came from?

However move a few hours east to Shelter Island and I don't see it as a viable alternative in that kind of environment. The deer can and do move on and off the Island with regularity and the environment is totally different. Plus hunting or shooting on Shelter Island is an option.

I think in a nutshell there are situations where this has some potential as a solution. Time will tell

The other thing that comes to mind, could deer be successfully transplanted from a relatively mild environment such as Staten Island to the substantially harsher conditions in Northern Maine and be expected to survive?

From the Doc's previous Post. I have no reason to doubt this stat, so It would seem to me that moving animals from A mild by comparison climate to northern maine would be a losing battle and a substantial waste of money.

The state Department of Environmental Conservation must also approve the plan. The department has said deer fertility control programs have “limited effectiveness.” It only permits such programs if they’re part of a scientific study.

Experts think the city would be nuts to sterilize male deer to control Staten Island's growing herd.

"It's difficult for me to come up with all the reasons why this is a really stupid plan," said Bernd Blossey, a ecologist at Cornell University who consulted City Hall on deer management strategies in November. "It's ridiculous from the onset."

Several wildlife experts said the plan won't work because the city is ignoring basic deer biology and conventional herd management practices, not to mention past attempts.

"This plan has very low likelihood of success," said Paul Curtis, another ecologist at Cornell who was part of the city's interagency deer task force. A few bucks in Ithaca, N.Y. were given vasectomies as part of a multi-year study on deer controls in and around the campus there.

"We could only do three vasectomies -- it wasn't safe for the deer and wasn't safe for us," Curtis said.

An unchecked and expanding herd can harm forests and private property, spread tick-borne illness like Lyme disease and wander into roads more often, increasing the risk for deadly vehicle collisions.

Some experts said the city's plan won't really counter any of that. Sterilizing borough bucks is expected to cut the population by 10 to 30 percent, but hundreds of deer that remain could still wreak havoc even without reproduction because they can live a decade or more

Spread of Lyme disease, collisions, impact on native vegetation or animals -- that will continue, Blossey said. And that's under a best-case scenario that assumes all bucks are sterilized.

A deer specialist at the Michigan Department of Natural Resources -- which had to approve the Ann Arbor cull -- called the Staten Island sterilization plan "short-sighted."

"This is a future solution to a problem that exists today," deer specialist Chad Stewart said.

Also, I think you have to look at each area and let it stand on it's own merits. What didn't work at Cornell for example wouldn't necessarily mean that it wouldn't someplace else. It seems hard to give an Ecologist that tried this with a sample size of 3, in a different geographical area a whole lot of credence.

"A deer specialist at the Michigan Department of Natural Resources -- which had to approve the Ann Arbor cull -- called the Staten Island sterilization plan "short-sighted."

"This is a future solution to a problem that exists today," deer specialist Chad Stewart said."

I'lll buy both of the above statements, this very well could be true, however, given the circumstances in Staten Island, did the deer specialist from Michigan offer a viable alternative?

People can and will poke holes in every idea known to man and find some degree of fault with it. The trick is to find a reasonable plan for the existing circumstances. The limitations on Staten Island have been listed, now come up with a workable plan. It doesn't have to be 100% fool proof, few plans are, but If shooting them is out of the question and moving them is not an option. Don't forget you can only move them if you find a place that will take them. Also if it will kill most of the deer anyway, why do it?

I'm not saying this is a great idea, but how many options really exist given the restrictions?

If hunting is not allowed then give Tony (yes, I'm really saying this) permission to use crossbows instead of dart guns and reduce the problem quickly. Of course in a couple of years the problem returns and that means more money for Tony, but it should cost the taxpayers a lot less than doing surgery on deer.

Why won't they do this? The anti's will march on the mayor's office, so it's politics and not commonsense.

Cities just don't have the money to pay $2 mil for animal control when budgets are being cut for education, road repairs, health care, etc.

Also regarding trapping and moving a large quantity of white tails to another location. Just consider the expense and logistics nightmare that would present. I can imagine the cost easily exceeding the vasectomy route. Imagine filling a truck with high strung whitetails and trying to keep them alive for a trip from Staten Island to Northern ME. Just consider for a moment what that would entail.

"People can and will poke holes in every idea known to man and find some degree of fault with it. The trick is to find a reasonable plan for the existing circumstances"

Darting is illegal = crossbow is illegal. Dart leaves deer on the island = crossbow eliminates deer immediately. Dart/surgery expensive. Crossbow/dead deer not so expensive. Darted deer run a long distance. Crossbow deer run shorter distance. Darted deer don't feed the homeless. Crossbow deer feed the homeless.

Why is ok for you and the Doc to shoot down the ideas of others, but we can't criticize the dart plan? Come on and play fair or I'm leaving the sandbox :(

WHAT? You mean deer aren't actually living and surviving on the subway system or the alley ways? That there's some actual greenways where deer can eat and bed down? I never heard of such a thing! How's this possible when Doc and BB have clearly pointed out that this is NYC with 500k people, not Redding CT.

Sounds like there are some great spots where the deer are concentrated into natural funnels for those crossbow experts that Tony has to set up some stands.

Naw!! Sounds too reasonable. And hunting is illegal, just like baiting and darting deer are illegal today.

Freshkills Park LaTourette Park Great Kill Park Clove Lakes Park Todd Hill Deere Park On and on.

And some of the names of the place you can shoot a crossbow have the best names - Freshkills and Great Kills parks!! It's destiny!! Some good stretches of open space between those high rises!

I understand you guys are frustrated that the borough is not seeing things your way, I know that you're frustrated there is dissent here, I get that. I would rather kill the deer than dart them personally. I can't speak for the Doc, but the holes I'm shooting in your arguments are easy to do, anybody can and will do it. You can criticize the dart plan all you want, do you just be able to criticize the plan without getting different points of view? You should have made this debate free.

You guys are beating your heads against the wall wanting a different plan that the entity that makes the rules isn't willing to do. There has to be a defenition of insanity in there somewhere.

Look the way i'm reading this, amongst all the other hurdles that have been cited, the community collectively doesn't want the deer killed.....i would call that a fairly substantial hurdle to over come.

bb - I think a lively exchange of ideas is healthy, especially for a topic where you're personally involved, as in spending tax dollars wisely,....or not.

If I were in a position of authority - I would challenge the "community" to provide the $2 mil in funding as a separate line item rather than taking the money from some other budget item. OR, have them come up with another solution to the deer problem.

I'm guessing the "community" is as sick and tired as I am of having the government spend my money foolishly; and that would prompt them look at crossbows, either by WB or hunters paying to hunt the parks I've listed, rather than spending my tax dollars.

I guess this is more about "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" and not so much about sterilizing deer or shooting them. Where do we draw the line on taxing the people? When do we stop spending money we don't have on a program that doesn't eliminate the problem, it just kicks the can down the road?

Looking at the map - I still say there's plenty of open space to fire off an arrow or bolt.

BTW - The official report from 2014 said there were 763 deer on the island, and some ecologists think there "maybe" more than 1,000 there now. If the scientific community believes that deer populations can double in 2 years than there might be as many as 1,526? WOW! I think we need more than $2 mil.

"If we start with 24 deer on Staten Island in 2008 and the deer herd doubles every two years our deer population would be approximately 192 deer in 2014. If we are to believe that the deer population on Staten Island in 2014 is - 763 deer; 571 of those deer or 74.83% came from outside of Staten Island."

If you start with 24 deer and have an increase in the herd, doubling every two years (a 50% fawn recruitment) the most you could have is approximately 384 deer in 8 years. The figure 763 deer in 2014 is with 4X applied ( 2008-2014). We have seen this same thing in Connecticut over the last 15 years whenever they promote the destruction of deer; Redding, CT Lyme study (30+ dpsm), Greenwich, CT (60 dpsm), Ridgefield,CT (48 dpsm), etc, etc.

On 6/24/16 we requested through FOIA the 2014 deer survey, 2016 FLIR deer survey and any contract between WB and the city of Staten Island, NY.

"hence the $2 million allotted to solving the problem legally and politically."

Your view that the sterilization program is being accepted as politically correct is not what I'm seeing. Several experts are disputing the plan as I mentioned above, so although it's not the friends of animal disputing the plan, there those that strongly disagree with it and calling it a waste of money.

Glen, just going with the numbers I have read in the papers and those numbers provided by you on this thread. Good luck with the FOIA, if they grant it to you. Not sure what you are going to find, just like you found nothing with the Redding project. When are you going to release the results of the 4-town VisionAir survey? Did you even do it? If you did, let me guess, single digit deer densities, again??

So, this is not about winning (at least not in my mind) this is about providing a different approach to solve the deer problem other than spending $2 mil dollars of taxpayer money. I know, it's not my money, I don't live on Staten Island, unless of course they have a federal grant, then it most certainly is partly my money. Remember now, the federal government gets their money from,......wait for it,......the taxpayers like me and you.

after doing a little research I came across an article that really interesting. Here's just a one paragraph.

"In 2008, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation conducted a survey of Staten Island’s deer population. The biologist who searched the woods estimated there were approximately 24 white-tailed deer in the borough. Last winter, the New York City Parks Department conducted an aerial, infrared survey of the island and found 793 individuals — an apparent 3,304 percent increase in just six years."

Now - I HAVE listened to you say several times that deer can double their population in a 2 year period, so how does 24 turn into 763 in 6 years?

I said before, I don't care how many deer are on the island, but this is why "ignorant" hunters like myself don't trust anything that comes from the mouths of the people managing our deer herd. 24 to 763 makes no sense! And neither does sterilization!

Also - other biologists have stated that if a doe is not bred during the normal rut it WILL go into heat several more times, attracting bucks from miles away. So sterilizing SOME of the bucks on the island will not solve the problem if other bucks are attracted to the doe in heat.

"Under normal conditions, all female whitetails go into heat within several weeks of each other and become pregnant at around the same time. This annual event is called the rut. However, if a doe is not impregnated during the rut, it will enter heat again the following month and again the month after that. Because the ligated does were unable to become pregnant, they continued to produce chemical signals of readiness to reproduce — signals that can attract bucks from miles away."

This was another FAILED attempt to lower the deer population by tying the tubes of the doe, only to discover the deer population remained constant due to the doe attracting bucks from outside the normal range.

Federal Grant Money - the word IF means there's uncertainty, so IF there's federal grant money means just that. Stay on track Scott and stop twisting what others say, that's very bad habit you have.

If the does on the island are not bred they will go into heat several times, just like in the Cornell incident, so sterilizing some bucks has little to no impact if the doe are still drawing in other bucks that have not been sterilized.

I find it amazing that you not only discount what hunters say, but also others in the scientific community which you seem to hold in such high regard (when they contradict you version of the science) when arguing a point with ignorant hunters. Having it both ways is a great way to argue a point. :)

Pellet - I do love to hear myself talk, but that's pretty obvious. And I hope that bad rash you have is treated quickly so you don't pass it along to others. You're being a stand up guy for disclosing it, I give you that much.

I know it's inconvenient to consider this if you've promised significant deer reduction, but ... it seem significant.

Tell you what pellet - I think I've said everything I needed to say about this topic so just to make you happy, I'll leave thread to others to discuss.

I wonder if BB works? I wonder if Scott works (when he's not on vacation)? I wonder if pellet works?

Sometimes this site makes me feel like Michael Coreleone in "The Godfather, Part III"; "Every time I think I'm out, they pull me back in!"

I was just going to watch this thread but just too many instances of incorrect information being repeated as gospel to let it go.

The link is to shed light (hopefully) on how it's pretty much a given that any time the public health is used to provide funding for any project in any state in the US every person that pays Federal income tax has some skin in the game.

From what I've read it appears that at least some of the funding for this study is coming via that route.

That being said, in the interest of full disclosure with almost 95 million Americans paying FIT in 2015 the potential out-of-pocket per person would be about $0.20; so, I guess that means we'll have to forgo getting whipped cream on a couple of our Coolattas....

The video is to demonstrate just one of the sources of the influx of deer to Staten Island and to me highlights a major issue with the proposed sterilization approach.

Absent the video it was readily apparent there was an ongoing influx of deer; the NY DEC survey of 2008 showed approximately 24 deer on Staten Island, the 2014 aerial survey estimated the population had grown to 763 deer. Assuming a doubling of the population every 2 years (as Howard Kilpatrick put forth in the CT 2006 Guide to Managing Urban Deer) that would put the population in 2014 at 192 deer, and that would be with zero mortality per year for the 6 years, something highly unlikely. An average influx between 22-25 deer per year would put the population pretty close to the 2014 survey number.

The issue as I see it with sterilization as proposed is you start out with the contractor stating a goal of "hopefully 90%" of the bucks; an acknowledgment of the reality that 100% is not likely. Given that unbred does will cycle as late as March there's a good likelihood that the untreated 10% (or greater) will breed some of those does and certainly the obvious influx of off-island deer will contribute to "unauthorized breeding on Jurassic Park", err Staten Island.

That's problem #1. Problem #2 as yet unaddressed is the obvious reality that because of the factors just discussed there will need to be a maintenance program of some sort to keep the population level down. To continue the sterilization program continues the cost with the same pitfalls and ultimately less than desired outcome.

Another misperception appears to be the unsuitability of any type of hunting (sharpshooting?) on Staten Island. To those unfamiliar with Staten Island the bulk of these deer are concentrated in sizable pockets of habitat that is very much like some of the pockets of forested habitat in Zones 11 & 12 in CT. (Link below gives a flavor for some of this habitat)

http://sigreenbelt.org/

I've had the benefit of working for a leading medical diagnostics company and working with teaching hospitals such as Staten Island University Hospital and Richmond University Medical Center since 1999, so I've had time to gain some familiarity with my favorite of the 5 boroughs.

So anyway, back to the crux of the discussion; what to do with too many deer?

As Bob has alluded to there has been discussion of allowing hunting (FYI-even Mayor Di Blasio is open to lethal means of population control, including hunting:

http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/03/de_blasio_wont_rule_out_killin.html)

From my perspective this decision to try the non-lethal approach is classic politics trumping common sense. A deer cull would be a far more cost-effective means than the sterilization program and the inescapable reality is that dead deer don't breed.

As this is being touted as a public health issue real leadership would press the need for a cull and tell the anti's and tree-huggers that fiscal responsibility and most likely best outcome trumps emotion, sorry.

A cull could be contracted out (an expense but much less than the non-lethal option) or it could either be performed by the NY DEC or the borough could hire it's own deer warden (this would actually generate tax revenue for Staten Island and might be a win-win for them.)

If anyone wants to comment on any of this and can do so in a constructive manner I'm more than willing to continue a productive dialogue.

If anyone wants to turn this into the internet equivalent of WWE, sorry, I've got much better ways to spend my time.

One of the components is public health education; the NYC Department of Health & Mental Hygiene receives funding from the State (which receives federal funding) and directly from the Federal government.

The Mayor said no lethal, none.

Well, so much for your thorough perusal of my post. Please do try to pay attention next time so I don't have to re-post:

"As Bob has alluded to there has been discussion of allowing hunting (FYI-even Mayor Di Blasio is open to lethal means of population control, including hunting:"

http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/03/de_blasio_wont_rule_out_killin.html)

Let me know if you'd like an explanation of the meaning of "open to lethal means of population control including hunting"; always glad to lend a hand to the needy.

So they put the money aside and received bids and opted with this one, a strictly non-lethal approach.

I've been writing contracts for the NY State DOH and NYC DOH&MH for over a dozen years; they don't "put money aside"; every line item is accounted for and at times funds are actually received as much as months after the FY actually starts, the ultimate "shoe-string buget." They wish they had money put away.

Perhaps in your contracting experience with these agencies you haven't run into this reality.

So you guys cry in your beer because WB was killing deer in Redding and now it's "non-lethal approach is classic politics trumping common sense."

The topic at hand is Staten Island and as that was the sole focus of my post if you want to respond with something constructive it would be greatly facilitated if you would stay on topic. Of course, this is making the assumption that you might have something substantive to offer to this particular discussion.

On a cost-efficiency scale it's not even remotely a contest; a cull is likely to be more effective and cost significantly less. Basic economics, something discarded in favor of political correctness, so "politics trumping common sense" is the perfect analogy.

So now you want WB to kill the deer?? Why is this so confusing?

I haven't stated a desire (want) for anything; I have laid out a clear and concise rationale for getting a better ROI, again, basic economics. If it's confusing I can recommend a good Econ book or perhaps you could audit a class somewhere (that's free).

Why is it not okay for WB to kill deer in Redding, but when they present a non-lethal approach in Staten Island, you want them to kill the deer instead? What?

Try to focus on the discussion please; the point is what is the most cost-effective means of addressing the problem on Staten Island. If you've got something of value to add to the discussion please do.

If your response above is all you've got to offer than kindly refrain from posting and start that thread I mentioned where you can more fully vent your spleen to whatever audience is so inclined to participate.

Thank you.

SWEET! You do an excellent job of laying the facts for everyone.

And I love the guy talking on the video, sounded like a soldier in Coreleone army.

Fact: something that actually exists; reality; truth:

So you think Mike is saying it is a FACT that this deer sterilization proposal is federally-funded project because, let me get this straight, there is a public health education component in preventing tick-borne diseases and the NYC Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene receives funding from the State of NY, and the State of NY receives federal funding from the Federal government (which is entirely redundant). Sounds like a big, huge, fat, lame stretch, and not a fact.

calm down, this should not be surprise to you that I agree with Mike and don't agree with you since I've been that for years now. Nothing new there, right. Sorry to see you so upset.

BTW - I'm not discussing the thread, am I? I did talk about Mike's ability to put word to screen and the guy on the video, and now I'm talking about you. Still not talking about the thread.

I'm a man of my word doc!

The only person on this thread who brings nothing of value to this discussion is you; as was suggested, if you have hurt feelings about past events that don't allow you to focus on this one start your own thread and have a ball with it. I'm pretty sure you'll be the only person to post on a thread like that and maybe that might paint the picture a little more clearly for you of just how unwelcome you are on this bow hunting site.

I still can't figure out why Glen cares so much about a project happening in another state that has nothing to do with him. I guess it's anti-WB and pro hunting at all costs, regardless of the situation. I guess it's kind of like voting Republican, regardless of the nominee.

1. Bill turns IRS on admin haters. 2. Covering up Bill's "Play will Willie" events by spredding dirt on the women who accuse him of rape. 3. Looting the White House - took possessions from the building after Bill's term in office. 4. Filegate - illegally obtained FBI files on adversaries 5. Hillary's chief of staff tied to Muslim Brotherhood 6. Vince Fosters "suicide" 7. EmailGate - enough said 8. Chinagate - donations made to CLintons 9. LAnding under sniper fire - NOT 10.Rose law firm billing records go missing

I could go on hours!!

To address your point; from the linked source:

" The inquiries that seem closest to him focus on two issues: the effort to help Senate Democrats, and the relationship he had with Nyclass, an animal-rights group that spent heavily in the 2013 mayoral race against Mr. de Blasio’s chief rival, Christine C. Quinn."

As I mentioned earlier, on the surface the move towards sterilization over a cull seemed to be classic politics trumping common sense. While undoubtedly accurate you could also add a class political quid pro quo took place too.

The point about di Blasio being open to hunting being political posturing is certainly valid; a few points-first, that doesn't detract from the point that the statement about hunting being completely off the table was inaccurate; that statement clearly was. Second, the political posturing could be in one of two directions; appeasement as you've suggested for the small voting bloc favoring hunting (or a cull) or to attempt to deflect the focus of his ties (and potentially illegal fund-raising) from an animal rights group.

In any event it's never a good thing to be staring down a Federal investigation. (Well unless you're a democrat in which case all bets are off.)

1. Staten Island by recent accounts has a problem with too many deer.

2. 2 key components cited in the need to reduce the deer population are a)public safety (deer/vehicle collisions) and b)public health (lyme disease).

3. If politics weren't driving the decision a deer cull (this does not mean hunting) is the best option because it a)has an immediate impact on the deer population as opposed to at best a projected 30% impact not until year 2 and b)is a less costly and a proven alternative. (Dead deer don't run into cars or carry ticks).

4. Mayor di Blasio has been the person stating hunting (and also poisoining by the way) is not off of the table. The citing of Mayor di Blasio's comments was to provide an honest accounting of the present situation and potential future options.

5. The geography of Staten Island where the majority of the deer reside is very much like some of the tracts of forested habitat in Zones 11 & 12; suitable to hunting (if di Blasio opts for it) but definitely suited to an outfit like WB as we have been told via the methods they employ and their safety history.

6. The NY DEC hasn't yet signed off on the sterilization progam. Since speculation seems to be in vogue let's ponder if those trained specialists aren't wondering why if there is both a public health concern and a public safety concern the proposal would be one that would have no positive impact at all on either of those issues in year one and at best, by projected estimates, a 30% reduction in year 2.

Perhaps some of those experts are keenly aware that they still have the issue of the influx of deer from surrounding areas and that the most likely outcome of this project would be they would be back exactly where they began, possibly worse off within 1-2 years of the completion of this project and out a minimum expenditure of $2,000,0000.00

It might just be, wonder of wonders, that there are actually government officials who recognize the John Q. Taxpayer (at the local, state, federal level as applicable) is pretty much tapped out and most definitely ticked off at years of fiscal insanity and we're finally beginning to see some accountability for how those monies are spent.

Lastly, it's everybody's business because this issue isn't unique to Staten Island and at some point, somewhere, the same question of how taxpayer dollars are best spent will arise.

The NY DEC has not yet signed off on the sterilization program for Staten Island, NY.

A certain Deer Reduction company was unable to kill as many deer as they promised, either due to inflated initial population guesstimates, or due to the fact that previous hunting efforts had already accomplished the job.

Suburban and Urban Hunting can be controversial at times. Night time culls can be even more so.

Vasectomies may have fewer residents complaining.

We will see what NYDEC does. I am certain they will sign off on this though.

And Ace, now you are upset because WB didn't kill enough deer in Redding? You are still barking up the population estimate tree? There are a TON of deer left in Redding. Yes you guys got numbers down, but not to levels that significantly negatively impact tick abundances. How were Siburn and Rick able to count 45 deer/square mile in the Huntington State Park area in Feb 2014? Heck their raw count on the square mile was 36!

I'm actually laughing, (along with everyone else) at the thought of you and your buddy making your life's work fondling deer testicles. Carry on.

I think from now on, you'll be addressed as: "Snippy".

JMO...

It ain't gonna work; does are going to keep cycling and bucks will keep immigrating until all the does get bred. As in Pregnant.

Yup, it's gonna cost a pile o' cash for zero results.

MAYBE the general public will eventually lose patience...

What amazes me is the notion that a well-placed broadhead or bullet is more "cruel" than expecting a buck to recover from a vasectomy without so much as an ice pack and a second dose of Motrin for the swelling....

Reminds me of the old riddle... If a frog is 10 feet from a wall and he can only jump half-way to the wall from where he is, then how many hops will it take for him to reach the wall?

And at a couple million $$/hop, this could get expensive....

I agree, I think the biggest hurdle when dealing with urban folks and hunting, they would rather see the animal suffer all kinds of violent deaths just as long as it's not a human inflicting the death.

White Buffalo on sterilization of deer

"Q. Why target females and not males for sterilization?

A. The easiest answer is that bucks impregnate multiple does, so it is much more effective to prevent the does from reproducing. Each doe that is fertile represents 1-2 fawns/year. For each doe that is sterilized, you are guaranteed a reduction in the number of fawns. If the bucks are sterilized, and too many are missed or new males immigrate, then many of the females could become pregnant."

This thread is not an emotional issue it is a common sense issue.

Oofa!!!

The bigger issue