Bowsite.com

Or maybe mutants in a good way. If the one buck that survive to breed did so because he is super smart (maybe mutated by radiation) , will he create a generation of super smart (and maybe evil) offspring.

Maybe like Star Trek II where the Kahn of bucks leads a generation of super sociopathic deer to take over Staten Island. Or Maybe Staten Island could become Planet of the Deer where humans are subjugated and enslaved.

Just ask Charlton Heston what happens when people play God with nature (either "Moses" or "George Taylor") , the answer will be the same, bad.

Next up: Someone will be doing a Gypsy Moth study which will prove conclusively that when there is taxpayer money in it, there is always a bug to be counted!

Just testing your scientific theory.....

So by that account, if bucks are 40% of the population and 700 were nutered, thepopulation would be 1,750 if they caught ALL the bucks. If they only caught 1/2 of the bucks it means they have 3,500 deer.

I think it was/is the responsibility of the dept.of the interior to do the estimations at inagurations..the interview said they take a satellite picture of the area then lay a grid over it, people then estimates or count how many people are in that one particular grid assigned to them..if a guy in a green hat moves through all of the grids then he's counted that many more times bringing up the total...kinda like counting deer on a grander scale

Here's an idea. Why not tranq them and then euthanize them, donate the meat to homeless shelters and remove the danger from the public????? Hmmmmm, sounds like it would cost less than surgery and provide 2 benefits. Naw, WB would probably make less money.

I also find it strange that WB couldn't shoot the projected number of deer in CT where there are thousands (exaggeration) running around in the kill area per their own aerial survey, but they can find every single buck on Staten Island (MORE than the survey) where there are millions of people (per Doc) all over the place getting in between the tranq gun and the deer. So not sure how WB could possible lure EVERY buck to a tranq gun where the range is much more limited than a high powered rifle, but failed in Redding. Interesting!

Redding - YOU said there were tons of deer in the kill area, that's why WB was asked to kill the deer. Then when they didn't kill the quota the excuse was human intervention (someone was watching from their truck, oh wow, that's terrible). And isn't it more difficult to get all of the bucks over a larger area, like 59 sq miles? How does that make it easier, please explain. You make no sense. And who is the professional you're talking? It's not you! You're just a biologist not connected with WB in any way, right? Or are you??? You seems to answer all of their questions. Why is that? Why do you have need to defend what a professional, independent company is doing? It has nothing to do with your job as CAES. Strange!

I thoroughly enjoy our discussions Doc. You're fun to play with :)

Actually Doc they answer to your question is very simple.......They did`nt.

Must all be fake news...

Absent independent first hand verification, I can't say it's unreasonable to question the numbers.

Bob, you can always believe in alternative facts, or read the article in which it says “. . . we’ve got a minimum of 527 deer on the Island, but it’s likely much higher.” My point in starting this thread was to show limitations in using thermal imagery to estimate deer abundances on large-scale areas. Because of all the skeptics here, I think we should organize a Bowsite field trip to Staten Island to count tagged deer and talk to NYC officials about how many deer have been sterilized. We could rent a bus.

Sounds like the "it's likely much higher" idea turned out to be correct. I don't see what WB would stand to gain by inflating numbers, except to help with future marketing efforts when they can use Staten Island as an example and tell municipalities "You think your problem is bad? It's probably much worse. Just look at Staten Island...We got clobbered on that job and that's why we had to raise our fee." The whole story is pretty amazing. Assuming the buck : doe ratio is 50/50, (which it's probably not), and assuming WB didn't overlook any scrotums, (which they likely have), then Staten Island actually has 3x the number of deer the ariel survey claimed.... likely much higher.... If any contractors did a shoddy job or fudged numbers, I would think it was most likely the jamokes flying the plane wanting to save fuel, or the bean counters sitting at mission control with tired eyes and thoughts about not being paid enough to count hundreds of blobs on an ariel survey.

I keep going back to it though, I think this is a BAD idea for hunters. Last thing I want is for people to start saying: "hey, hunting isnt needed for population control efforts, we could just tranc the deer and "fix" em..." Ugh.

It's mind boggling, be it with bait and night vision or not, to tag (literally) so many deer. I'm amazed by that. While the sq/mi is substantial, the suitable deer habitat must be compressed in some ways to help compress where the animals are living.

Again, the hunter in me thinks this stinks. But the science nerd is finding it rather amazing!

To put the population into perspective, there are slightly fewer deer on the island than there are asians, but more deer than the American indian population. Also, just to stir the pot a bit for Doc and B3, very interesting to read that the inhabitants of the island voted for Obama (50.7%) in 2012, yet they voted in favor of Trump (56.1%) in 2016. Wikipedia does not discuss how the deer voted, but now that most of the deer have no balls, I suspect a democrat will prevail in 2020... ; )

Glen pulls the string ... and the puppet responds. Anyone else wonder how long it will take him to realize he's being toyed with?

Posting a Parks Department chart that shows AERIAL SURVEY locations is also meaningless when trying to prove the number of bucks sterilized.

The easier and cheaper solution to the problem would have been to just ship several bears from Avon to Staten Island and let them take care of business.

1. $25 billion is missing funds - "Unreconciled Transactions Affecting the Change in Net Position," which explains that these unreconciled transactions totaled $24.5 billion in 2003. 2. Unused Flight Tickets Totaling $100 Million 3. $5.8 million embezzled Funds at the Department of Agriculture (I would think this one is pretty close to home for you Doc) 4. Credit Card Abuse at the Department of Defense

The Defense Department has uncovered its own credit card scandal. Over one recent 18-month period, Air Force and Navy personnel used government-funded credit cards to charge at least $102,400 for admission to entertainment events, $48,250 for gambling, $69,300 for cruises, and $73,950 for exotic dance clubs and prostitutes

I think that makes the point pretty clearly that our government do NOT account for every dime, whether it's a grant or just the day to day spend.

Maybe taxpayer money directed towards blood sucking parasites is starting to dry up.

And Doc, come on, you need to think up your own jabs. I used the "off your meds" line first. Did you get your PHD by looking at someone else's paper during the tests?

Doc - “if Glen is so concerned with WB efforts, he contact someone at NYC to verify, like he did relentlessly with our CDC study. And what did he find there? Nothing.”

I’m having a hard time understanding why you’re still avoiding accounting for, WB invoice # 2015-12 from the CDC, Redding, CT. ITM study. If this invoice is “Nothing”, why do you keep ignoring it ?

Go ahead and continue to use your Pie analogy if it makes it easier for you.

Chaz, The WB project supervisor supervised the deer removal portion of the Integrated Tick Management study. The WB wildlife biologist shot the deer in the center of the brain and transported the carcasses to Whitetail Solutions’ butcher.

I'm such a jerk sometimes. :)

WB had already been paid for services rendered, invoice 2015-3 submitted for payment on 1/31/2015; for which they billed $95.00+ per hour for sharpshooting (11 deer) for a total of $20,069.22.

WB invoice 2015-12 was submitted 3/1/2015 with an hourly billing rate of $150.00 and $95.00+ per hour for project supervisor and wildlife biologist for a total of $9,236.84 without any sharpshooting.

Doc you refer to a MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) between the CAES and WB; it was actually an MOA (Memorandum of Agreement) and it listed 5 WB personnel authorized to perform deer culls. Please list the names of the 2 people supposedly paid in the invoice in question (2015-12) submitted for payment 3/1/2015 ? You also refer to WB being under MOU (contract) in the third year for the CDC study; if WB were under (MOU or contract) why were they billing by the hour in year three ?

Actually the project was extended for a year and only recently wrapped up. Would you like to explain why you always refer to it as if it were ancient history then ?

Doc - "How WB breaks down invoicing and who they pay for their work on their staff is their business, not CAES"

As you keep referring to the study as if it were over "for a long time" I'd say you don't even have a good handle on CAES business. As someone with his signature on a good deal of documents related to the study I'd say you should have a much better understanding of what WB is doing with CDC grant money.

Finally, as someone who starts a thread about a topic NO ONE has brought up in over 5 months to talk SPECIFICALLY about a WB project it is very convenient how little you profess to know when cornered.

This is no different than hiring a landscaper to work on your property for 3 years. You sign a 3-year contract for a given amount of money, they do the work and invoice you twice a year for a portion of that money, and at the end of the contract/3-years, you have paid them in full the amount agreed upon. Now, do you chase down the landscaper and demand to know what they are spending that money on? No, because that is no business of yours as your contract with them has since expired. You have the MOA provided to you by our Business Office at your request that was signed by CAES and WB that spells out the terms of the financials and that is what we did. Why is this so hard to understand? Because you don’t like it?

So if I were issuing the same WB order PO and without knowing the exact line items, it would look something like this:

(1) Year one sharpshooters, qty 5 ea at a cost of $95/hr total hours 100 = $9500 (2) Year one WB biologist, qty 1 ea at a cost of $1/hr (over priced) total hours 100 - $100 (3) Year one WB supervisor, qty 1 ea at a cost $2 mil/hr (this is obviously Tony, non-profit) total hours 1 - $2,000,000

Then go on to year 2 and 3. We would also request documentation for hours worked, so a time card would be required, not someone's word. And if the payments were based upon deer killed, we would need 3rd party verified proof (unbiased) such as an auditing company.

That's the real world Doc, not the government spending my money.

Bob, That may be Stanleys requirement, but a time card is only required if the terms and conditions require an itemization of hourly labor. It's not unusual to have a lump sum agreement which details the entire scope of work but doesn't break it down on a line by line dollar amount. Often if there are many facets to the scope of work, you pay more trying to break every facet out on a separate line and assign a value to each line as if it stands alone. Many facets of a scope of work overlap each other, where it is more cost effective to lump it together. I do this everyday, I'm primarily billing state and municipal agencies. The only time I have to break labor out on an hourly basis is when it's a prevailing wage job and I have to supply certified payroll. even then it's still a lump sum project, with the hours worked by each individual accounted for in order for the state to make sure the people working on the job get paid the published rate.

I mentioned hourly rate because Airrow said "WB invoice 2015-12 was submitted 3/1/2015 with an hourly billing rate of $150.00 and $95.00+ per hour for project supervisor and wildlife biologist for a total of $9,236.84 without any sharpshooting."

And yes, if we're contracting for an hourly rate we require documentation. Simplest example is - we have temps working for us and they need to submit a time card. I issue the purchase orders for these people and it states a certain hourly rate. If we hire them to say, renovate our offices (also a recent job) then the purchase order specifies the work to be done, not an hourly rate.

My point was simply this - the private sector operates with a different set of rules, and I'm basing that comment on what Doc says is OK in the world of government work, and my own personal experience.

Bob....I should have known :)

There are Four ways to spend money 1. Spending your own money on yourself. (this is the most efficient because Cost matters and Quality matters.

2. Spending your own money on someone else. (Not as efficient because while Cost matters, Quality doesn't matter as much)

3. Spending Other People's Money on Yourself. Even less efficient because Cost doesn't matter but Quality matters.

4. Spending other People's Money on Other people. Very inefficient because Cost and Quality don't really matter.

Now let's think about this. Number 1 is what we do with the money that we earn, we pay our bills, buy food etc. Number 2 is what happens when you give to charity, give to others etc. Number 3 is like when the government gives out taxpayer funds in the form of welfare (for example). Number 4, well that's what someone from around here is trying to tell us works so well.

Draw your own conclusions.