Bowsite.com

PBS special on deer and ticks

You guys are gonna love this one!

I saw that presentation when aired on the TV. Nothing new.

Definitely slanted against hunting when the only interviews they conducted were with Tony D, a home owner, the Humane Society and their associates. I representative from Tufts was very factual and unbiased in his comments. It would have been a bit more interesting and balanced to hear from the someone representing hunters and see what they say about gaining access to some of the preserves and the cost of "ongoing" sterilization programs or paying for sharpshooters.

As a taxpayer I get really upset about the government spending money needlessly, especially when so many cities and states are in financial trouble. Is lyme disease problem real? Absolutely. But if hunters are willing to resolve the problem and save the city, state, fed money then I say tell the animal rights people to come up with the money to cover the cost of sterilization or get out of the way.

If hunters were allow access to parks, preserves, private land, etc and given liberal tag limits the herd would decrease in a cost effective way. Any landowner not allowing hunting would need to pay a special tax to cover the cost of sterilization so the people that don't want the deer killed pay for it themselves. See how fast they change their minds then!

I also wonder why deer don't get lyme and what is being done in the medical world to find out and put it out there as a cure or preventative vaccine. I'm sure they're working on it, but it should have been included in the report.

Kill the mice!!

Pretty much one sided..Why no mention of cost

No cost because it doesn't further the argument to eliminate hunting. How about this - check yourself for ticks. Has worked for me the last 48 years

As far as opening lands to hunting, MA DCR opened the featured Blue Hills Reservation to hunting to “manage deer” as they had “exploded in numbers in recent years.” In 2015 during a 4-day shotgun hunt, hunters killed 64 deer. In 2016, 58 deer were killed over 4 days. Over the 7,000 acre reservation, that results in a decline of 5.6 and 5.3 deer/square mile respectively. This is not deer management. This is increased opportunity for hunters while skimming a few dumb animals off the top. IF MA DCR was serious about deer management like they claim to the public, why is the Reservation only open for 4 days of hunting? How can hunters be expected to truly manage deer over 7,000 acres on only 4 days a year? And also, hunters are not serious about solving the problem. They have shown time and time again that they cannot or will not get deer densities down low enough to “solve the problem.” THAT is why taxpayer money is used to pay for sharpshooters who then actually solve the problem. Hunters have the opportunity, but don’t solve the problem and then complain when taxpayer money is used to kill the deer they wouldn’t or couldn’t. Hunters say just what you are saying here, but seldom, if ever follow through.

I do agree with access issues as you state, but in Zones 11 and 12 in CT, I would say that they are some of the most liberal tag limits in the United States. You can bait and kill as many deer as you can from mid-September through the end of January. Has that reduced deer abundance in these zones since their inception? Absolutely. Are there still plenty of deer in Zones 11 and 12? Absolutely, but not in same densities that were there when the liberal tagging system went into place.

Deer get infected with the spirochetes but are asymptomatic for Lyme. Actually, most wild animals do the same. Probably because they evolved with it for millennia; it has always been latent in the environment until the 1970s when a zillion deer emerged on the landscape in close proximity to people and it blew up into today’s epidemic. Now domestic animals have that immunity bred out of them and is why cattle, horses, dogs, and cats get Lyme disease. And yes, a preventative vaccine is the cure all, but one does not yet exist, aside from the old one that was pulled off the market.

This will likely be a single post on this topic; the issue has already been discussed ad infinatum, ad naseum and the same flawed arguments are again being made.

FACT-If one accepts that lowering deer densities to 10/sq mi reduces Lyme incidence significantly then neither hunting nor sharpshooting will accomplish that density outside of insular settings.

In the case of hunting the type of sustained pressure needed to achieve those levels would cause pressured deer to vacate and/or alter feeding patterns to a degree that would leave the number well over the target goal.

In the case of sharpshooting in open settings it boils down to being economically unfeasible and likely would encounter manpower issues as well. Testimony from WB founder Anthony DeNicola (see Newtown, CT) cited those issues as pegging the realistic ceiling at somewhere around 20 dpsm in open settings such as, and similar to Newtown, CT.

FACT-the CDC does not recommend killing deer to deal with lyme disease.

FACT-the CDC publishes annual statistics per state that show areas of high lyme disease incidence with low deer densities and vice versa.

FACT-zoonotic diseases are inherently impossible to eradicate when a multiplicity of suitable hosts/vectors exists. It is the biological equivalent of Don Quixote tilting at windmills.

Absent (for the moment) a efficacious vaccine the best option remains preventative measures (as described by the CDC among other agencies).

Bob,

Link describes an immune process known as complemented-mediated killing of B. burdorferi (link below describes the process in general) that occurs in deer. In essence, deer have an innate immunity to the spirochete that causes lyme disease.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK27100/

https://vimeo.com/51269454

I like this one

Ill have to watch this. (so, at the risk of going full scale Dunning-Krugger on this thread, Ill post anyway...) I am in the camp that rodents are more likely the issue than deer, for darn sure. I use it every-time we discuss this, but at least 50% of the dpsm were taken out of Quabbin here in MA (reality is likely higher) and with numbers now close to 10 in most of the res, and surrounding areas, lyme disease cases just keep rising.

Its one area, and not science, but I think if one epidemiologicaly went back and reviewed that area, an interesting case AGAINST deer numbers and lyme disease would occur - IE, correlation not causation.

Happy to be corrected Dr Williams, that's just my observation... maybe that study has been done actually? No idea...?

Dr Williams, do you know why the vax was pulled? I've heard varying rumors, but dont remember "real" reasons. Hope to heck it's not anti-vaxers. That would be super sad. It would be sad if it was financial as well (IE company didnt make enough off it), especially given the rate of Lyme disease is only increasing.

Hawks!!!! We need hawks as far as the eye could see..

Will,i remember reading ( in a actual financial rag.huh,who knew) it was pulled for finacial reasons.the company couldnt produce enough to get the cost down and i think insurance companys wouldnt cover the patient end of it ..

Doc your post sounds like you start off by saying hunters weren't given enough opportunity to reduce the herd, but then you take the opposing view by saying - "hunters are not serious about solving the problem. They have shown time and time again that they cannot or will not get deer densities down low enough to “solve the problem.”

I'm not trying to give you a hard time (hard to believe, I know) but this is what confuses me and others about your position on hunting. I believe that if ANY location has a deer management problem they should have a target number in mind, either for the number of deer to be harvested or the remaining herd size. Hunting should continue until the target is reached. There are several hunters that would jump at the opportunity to take home some meat, especially if they're new to hunting or can't find an area presenting good kill opportunities.

I don't look at hunting as a way to manage lyme disease, I view it as a challenging past time that puts food on the table and provides countless hours of being close to nature. I look at the deer/lyme issue this way - you can get ring worms, hook worm, round worms and other ailments from your pets, but I wound never kill them as the cure.

So Mike, your solution to curbing zoonotic disease transmission is to do nothing because it is too complex? You are suggesting that trying to limit said transmission is equivalent to lancing a windmill? Come on man. You need to be more creative than that. Here is a fact sheet we put out on the relationship of deer and ticks. Would love to hear your feedback about it.

I love the Plum Island conspiracy theory. So ridiculous. If Lyme disease was “created” there and escaped to Lyme, CT in the 1970s, how did Otzi the Iceman have Lyme disease in 3200 BC in the Italian Alps?

Will, I know that deer densities are low in western MA, but I have real trouble believing they are at 10/square mile due to the Quabbin hunt. To quote Mike from a few posts back “FACT-If one accepts that lowering deer densities to 10/sq mi reduces Lyme incidence significantly then neither hunting nor sharpshooting will accomplish that density outside of insular settings. In the case of hunting the type of sustained pressure needed to achieve those levels would cause pressured deer to vacate and/or alter feeding patterns to a degree that would leave the number well over the target goal.” I also have an issue with the way the MA biologist comes up with densities, not by doing actual surveys but by using harvest numbers and modeling somehow. That aside, to say that “Lyme disease cases just keep rising” isn’t really factually correct. The Quabbin area spans many counties in MA, so in the image here, I compiled all the reported Lyme disease cases for Franklin, Hampshire, and Hampden Counties for 2005-2014. That data can be accessed here: http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/gov/departments/dph/programs/id/epidemiology/ticks/surveillance-summaries-data.html You will see that reported cases fluctuate year to year, but to say they “just keep rising” is not really true. So are deer densities in western MA low? No doubt, but not below the critical threshold to substantially reduce reported Lyme disease cases.

Bob. I have published research showing that where deer are overabundant in suburban areas, when hunting is used as a management tool, with virtually no restriction on take, with baiting, unlimited tags, months long seasons, hunters can only get deer densities down to around 40 deer/square mile. If you will recall all the drama in Redding, DEEP and CAES consistently reported raw uncorrected densities of 30, which in reality, were closer to 40-45 and the guys are complaining there are no deer around anymore and we were lying to them. 40 deer/square mile is less than 80 yes, but does next to nothing for forest health and tick and disease reduction. And the strategy you state, that “Hunting should continue until the target is reached” does not work as hunting then maintains deer at around 40/square mile: increased hunting pressure does not drive density to zero.

That's not what I asked you Doc. You seem to take both sides of the issue in your initial post and I was just wondering why? If the area in question in a preserve or state land or town land,....can it be done through hunting? Forget backyard hunting for now.

If hunting can't remove the deer then what's the answer to herd problem?

Oops. Wrong link for Mike. Here it is.

Scott,

I'd really appreciate it if you would make more of an effort not to misrepresent what I say in the future; I stated that for all practical purposes given the factors I described it is simply not feasible to expect to eradicate zoonotic diseases.

Stating a fact does not equate to doing nothing; options presented were preventative measures as endorsed by the CDC. Continued efforts at developing efficacious vaccine(s) is another.

None of those options equate to doing nothing so kindly stop posting I'm advocating doing nothing.

I've read the fact sheets and we have and will continue to have a difference of opinion on them; given the CDC does not advocate deer eradication (though I will readily concede in certain insular areas absent other suitable vectors there can be optimal outcomes of that practice) I will continue to advocate the positions they have established and ones empiric evidence abounds to support.

Again, none of the facts I listed are in dispute and it should be noted that you aren't disputing ANY of them (merely misrepresenting what I said and quite frankly I found that disappointing as I thought we'd moved past that stage).

I have no problem with spirited (and respectful of course) debate; I do have a problem given the demands on my time with wasting time as in the issue I had with the statement I corrected of yours.

Please do not reply if further repetition is to be forthcoming.

Mike. I did not misrepresent what you said. I asked you two questions about your previous post. Lighten up.

Clearly you are a busy guy, but no one is forcing you to spend your valuable time posting here. So as to not waste your valuable time with repetition, I think we need to tighten up your statement a little. You said and I quote, using copy and paste mind you, “FACT-the CDC does not recommend killing deer to deal with lyme [sic] disease.” Now from Kugeler et al. 2015, whose affiliation is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Division of Vector-Borne Diseases: “At present, the evidence is weak regarding deer control as a standalone intervention to reduce human Lyme disease risk.” Here is my statement to make yours factually correct: “FACT – Currently, the CDC does not recommend deer reduction as a standalone intervention to reduce human Lyme disease risk, but are further exploring its use in an integrated tick management approach.” To refresh your memory, in the CDC-funded Integrated Tick Management study, we had 2 treatment neighborhoods (actually 4 total): in one we used deer reduction in an integrated approach with fipronil rodent-target bait boxes and a broadcast application of Metarhizium anisopliae, Strain F52 and another where deer reduction was a standalone treatment for effectiveness comparison.

“FACT-the CDC publishes annual statistics per state that show areas of high lyme [sic] disease incidence with low deer densities and vice versa.” Where? Can you show these statistics to the Bowsite readership? The CDC knows where high deer densities are? I’m going to email them to find all the good hunting spots. The CDC puts out maps like the one above, where, and I quote “Each dot represents one case of Lyme disease and is placed randomly in the patient’s county of residence. The presence of a dot in a state does not necessarily mean that Lyme disease was acquired in that state. People travel between states, and the place of residence is sometimes different from the place where the patient became infected.” Does not sound like the fine-scale “more deer = less Lyme” argument you pose. Are you sure your statement is truly a “FACT?”

“FACT-zoonotic diseases are inherently impossible to eradicate when a multiplicity of suitable hosts/vectors exists. It is the biological equivalent of Don Quixote tilting at windmills.” I would have to agree. That is why deer reduction is still being looked at, to remove one of the major suitable tick hosts. This statement and Don Quixote is how I surmised you suggest it is impossible so why bother. You don’t want deer removed, yet you state “zoonotic diseases are inherently impossible to eradicate when a multiplicity of suitable hosts/vectors exists.” Given your statement, logic suggests eliminating a suitable host to break the chain of transmission, but you don’t want to do that. As Sam Telford in the video suggests, why attempt to remove mice when there are so many of them when deer are bigger and far less abundant?

Field and Stream seems to think that deer hunters can curb Lyme disease: http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/a-sportsmans-life/how-hunting-can-curb-lyme-disease-part-1

Doc - the CDC website makes no mention of deer reduction as being a means to control lyme, so thank you Mike for that FACT. If they're doing some studies that have yet to provide definitive proof, which is what most of us have been saying for years, then I say SO WHAT?? And if you think Field and Stream is the best place to get research data for lyme disease then I say you should check Nasty Girls magazine. I'm almost positive I saw a tick in one of the photos in the upper thigh area. :) :) :)

Scott, The Quabbin hunt has reached its goal of decreasing the deer density down to 10-12dpsm. That is with only 2 days of hunting in each of 4 zones each year. They have now moved on to the maintenance part of the program. Doe permits are based on a lottery and less hunters in each zone every year.

Shawn. I find that hard to believe. I'm sure there are other factors at play. Who and how was that 10-12 dpsm derived? I'd love to fly that area and do a survey.

Scott,

Unsurprisingly we seem to be in disagreement over what constitutes a misrepresentation; to simplify things I thought it best to have the good folks at Merriam-Webster sort things out:

Definition of misrepresent transitive verb 1: to give a false or misleading representation of, usually with an intent to deceive or be unfair; misrepresented the facts

Your "surmise" would seem to meet their definition; the first question you posed was "So Mike, your solution to curbing zoonotic disease transmission is to do nothing because it is too complex? You are suggesting that trying to limit said transmission is equivalent to lancing a windmill?"

Now let's look at the full context of what I said about this: " FACT-zoonotic diseases are inherently impossible to eradicate when a multiplicity of suitable hosts/vectors exists. It is the biological equivalent of Don Quixote tilting at windmills.

Absent (for the moment) a efficacious vaccine the best option remains preventative measures (as described by the CDC among other agencies). "

I'm sure I'll get no disagreement that what I advocated was "doing nothing" about "limiting transmission"; unless, that is, you would like to offer a brand new definition of what "preventative measures" means?

Also, given that you had no difficulty in cutting and pasting some quotes (though you omitted my follow-up sentence....hmmm....) I can't seem to find your cut and paste of my "you don't want deer removed"; perhaps due to the fact that I never stated that; another misrepresentation of my post-surprise.

I could argue that "absent(for the moment) an efficacious vaccine is a clear indicator that I view that potential option as a preventative measure as well but that would be piling on.

If you feel the need to consult other dictionaries on "misrepresent" I'd also suggest you may want to look of "explore" as it really isn't relevant to my statement (and thank-you Bob for highlighting this fact) that until such "exploring" produces facts relative to the premise the CDC position remains as I stated with regard to documented effectiveness.

Another area of confusion I hope to clear up for you is the linkage of facts; the CDC does publish statistics of all reportable diseases for each state; they don't publish (nor did I expect anyone to "surmise" that they do publish) statistics on deer populations. This does not impact the fact that one can determine deer densities for the 50 states and then compare those to the published CDC data and arrive at the same conclusion.

Ordinarily I'd be willing (though it's still a stretch in my opinion) to concede the point could have been misunderstood but I reserve that privilege for those not predisposed towards misrepresenting statements with seeming regularity. (Speaking of which I'm sure everyone hear is still dying to see the actual quotes from all the posters who "want 40-50 dpsm"; given the vast number or threads and posts on those threads that one should have been a snap to pull up yet oddly you never seemed to be able to accomplish that task. And no, the contortions that would make a circus freak green with envy to twist words to try and make them sound like that aren't passing muster-we've seen that linguistic legerdemain from you before.

Lest you think your post a total loss here is a positive; the deployment of the passive-aggressive tactic (see the use of "valuable" related to my time) was a commendable effort at provoking irritation; while I'd rate it a solid "B-" you have some work to do before approaching the irritation capabilities of the Jedi Master of irritation, our very own BigBuckBob.

Perhaps if you ask him nicely he'll share some of that knowledge.

Bob and others; I'l be happy to address any questions or insights you may wish to contribute; as I'm sure all of your reasonable folk will conclude there's ample evidence there's nothing to be gained by continued engagement with a poster habitually disinclined to stick to debating what people actually write/say.

Bang goes the dynamite!

And I find it strange that Doc doesn't believe the game management people in MASS when they say the herd level of 10/12 dpsm has been reached, but when our game management people provide the same type of data we're told "They're the professionals" and why do we distrust their numbers. It must be so confusing to argue with yourself.

Does anyone else get the feeling that something is crawling on them after reading posts about ticks? lol

Doc - Sounds like the Ice Man was also lactose intolerant. Lol. Must have been one of my ancestors....

Also of interest, he appears to have died secondary to a flint arrow head in the shoulder. Article did not specify how many grains, or if was a fixed blade or mechanical though.

http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/archives/entry/blumenthal_offers_public_health_advisory_on_ticks_as_connecticut_population/#more

Dr Williams -

Those are some amazing stat's. I was talking with my Wife the other day, and saying how I literally NEVER saw a tick until I was in the sixth grade despite constant play in the woods and fields, after that, I still only saw a few now and then with increasing time outside... Only late in high school or in college did we start thinking: "I ought to look for ticks", around that time you started hearing cases of Lyme disease occurring... Now it feels like most of the folks you know have an experience with it...

That said, subjective bias is a real thing, and, I am laying out ideas based on that, I've not spent time probing data. (Like I noted above, I was risking being a perfect example of Dunning Kruger with my post above) Just interesting that as a kid, even in high school, I could see 40-50 deer in a field, even 1-2 miles from the Reservoir if you put headlights in the field... Now, best you could do is maybe 4 or 5 deer. Literally, that would be many times over the GOOD years worth of sightings for most hunters I know in the area now. Friends and I could hunt, a shorter season by about 5-6 weeks and see 4-5 X the number of deer most years. Now, longer season, most people I know see fewer deer than they used to while hunting more with (theoretically) better techniques and skills.

I dont think the lower numbers are solely quabbin hunt, though it certainly was a big impact on local populations. There is a consensus among hunters up here that the numbers are lower everywhere basically west of Worcester - to varying degrees. While some of that may be related to hunters having less access, some is likely the rise of predators - First Bear I ever saw was when I was in my early 20s, that was rare. Now, it's common to see them. Back then, we'd see coyotes now and then, but today, you say many times over the number of coyote tracks in the snow that you do deer. Bobcats, I'd say that's about the same purely on observation. I think lower deer numbers have also lead to some hunters (sorry folks) being overly zealous. Often you hear of big (15-20+) guy gang drives and groups shooting multiple groups of deer. Many do soft pushes and small drives responsibly, but those big gang drives, they are a serious issue in my mind... And interestingly, the folks doing them sometimes suggest the reason is because there are so few deer it's the only way to get them - self fulfilling prophesy.

While the counting strategies of MDFW may not be valid, at least based on what they are saying - which is all we have to go on - there has been, at least, a very substantial decrease in deer numbers in the quabbin area... But, from say the early-mid 90's on, what are the LD #'s? You may have better access to that. a quick google just now showed info on numbers, but all mid 00's to now - nothing from when deer numbers were higher - regardless of accuracy. By the early 00's the area round quabbin was already MUCH lower in deer numbers... We'd really need info on roughly 1990 on. Then again, if the LD bug has been rising in the environment, we have a bad sample regardless. These complex issues are pretty amazing to ponder.

That's amazing about the Ice Man. Had no idea that these illnesses had been around for so long - it felt like something that had evolved for some reason or what not. It's amazing too how concentrated that one chart is with cases of LD... Is there an environmental aspect to the disease, or even an association with population centers? Just curious on that given most cases seem to be from where the most people are... So I'm assuming that say, in Kentucky, where deer numbers are high but LD seems low... is that just under reporting or is the disease just not as common in ticks in that area?

This stuff is really amazing to me, I appreciate you putting up data for us to check out and learn from here!

Sooooooo Mike, lots of 3 syllable words with no substance…. Lots of deflection and lamenting about misrepresentation for 80% of your post based on 2 questions I asked and no backing up of your “FACTS”? If you just stated this “. . . they (CDC) don't publish (nor did I expect anyone to "surmise" that they do publish) statistics on deer populations”, than your previous statement of “fact” is not fact: “FACT-the CDC publishes annual statistics per state that show areas of high lyme [sic] disease incidence with low deer densities and vice versa.” Your sentence here indicates that CDC knows where the deer are and publish that in annual statistics. Anyone who can read would surmise the same. Perhaps your “FACTS” as presented are actually alternative facts?

Now I will help you out. CDC does not publish statewide maps as they are a federal agency. State departments of health sometimes produce those maps but I see nothing there of maps of varying deer densities. http://www.ct.gov/dph/cwp/view.asp?a=3136&Q=399694&dphPNavCtr=|#46999 I would take your advice of comparing such a map to the one I produced here, but how are we as hunters to know where areas of high deer densities are in CT when we know DEEP to be so entirely inept at surveying deer? How quixotic!!

Oops. LD map here. Interesting that cases per 100,000 people higher in towns with fewer people. Those are the towns where people still get outside and pick up ticks. High density towns in FF County and CT River Valley have low incidence as they are all in offices or on PlayStation all day.

To Mike’s cheerleader. Mike has shown for years he can handle himself, but am sure he appreciates the support, every time he posts . . . I merely asked Shawn who derived that 10-12 figure and how they derived it. Seems impossibly low is all. Though 48 deer harvested in 2015 by about 800 guys over 2 days is pretty pitiful, but then again the 2015 season here in CT was pretty lousy too. But according to the 2014 Quabbin Deer Hunt Newsletter, which summarizes the 2013 season found here: http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/dcr/water-res-protection/watershed-mgmt/quabbin-reservation-deer-hunt.html (curious is that there is no report for 2014), in the 4 Quabbin zones, 780 hunters harvested 122 deer over the 2-day hunt. They gave information in there in which we can determine land area and deer take on each of the 4 zones, except for New Salem which I did a quick and dirty estimate and got 10 square miles. So given all that, 46.3 square miles were hunted and 122 deer taken for a total of 2.6 deer/square mile harvested in 2 days. In 2013 in Redding, a town whose deer herd I know Shawn to be familiar with, over 138 days, hunters, however many there may have been, took 156 deer or 4.9 deer/square mile. I guess I am not sure where I am going with this, but long story short, despite a high hunter density with blanket access, to harvest 2.6 deer/square mile in 2 days, the density has to be over 10-12/square mile. This would suggest that in 2 days, hunters harvested 25% of the Quabbin deer, which I find hard to believe given the fraction of the deer they harvested at Blue Hills Reservation in a similar controlled hunt. Quabbin densities are probably double that like 20-24/square mile would be my guess. That is fairly low compared to what it once was, but overabundant deer just are not found any more in overly mature forests. They are in people’s backyards where the habitat is, ducking under swingsets after supper time to get to the hostas. We didn’t see many of them when we flew over Centennial Watershed State Forest in nearly the same abundances as we did when flying over the neighborhoods and I would presume it is hardly different one state to the north.

Doc, you're taking out of both sides of your mouth ... which for you is a departure as you so often talk out of your ass.

The deer density numbers are solid because a biologist did the count. The numbers are inaccurate because I disagree with what they suggest.

Lyme Disease is tremendously under reported, so the numbers are meaningless. Here is a chart of Lyme Disease cases that I present to you because it proves a point I want to make.

All everyone here has to do is notice that you made three posts in a row on a thread that you started and they'll figure out what a blow hard you are.

Apparently you didn't get a new big tax payer funded grant to count some new kind of bug. I guess you'll have to stay with that: 'blood sucking parasite expert' reputation that you've earned.

But ... ... Carry on. I'm enjoying watching so many different people making you look foolish.

N8tureboy, I laugh every time you post cause that's the same thing the kids used to call me in grade school. I watched a show on the last day of the Iceman's life based on his fatal wound and stomach contents. Pretty interesting.

Hoyt, I always feel like I have ticks crawling on me and usually do. My body chemistry and size lends itself to being a tick magnet.

Notme. Bloomey was at my work and I didn't even know he was coming! I guess they keep it hush hush for security reasons. But ticks sure are in the news these days!!

Dr Williams - I see the math on Quabbin... All I can say, is a walk through blue hills would suggest massively higher deer density than Quabbin today, or any time in the past 4-5 years. It may just be that MA historically estimates a low #, thus "our" calibration is off when thinking of how many deer are in an area.

Put it this way, If some how we got a decent count, and it was 15, I'd say ok - there's some margin of error with the estimate via kill approach so I guess it's wrong. It's possible. I know it was immensely higher when the hunt started. That's the key point.

That said, regardless of deer numbers, is there any reason why Lyme disease seems centered "here" and the upper mid west? Why is it not as common, say, in VA or SC or GA? Or is it just way under reported there due to the medical realm not being used to looking for or Dx'ing it? OR, is it something unique to our environment which facilitates growth of the specific pathogens?

"Ace" your contribution, as always, is incredibly original, insightful, amusing, and makes folks think. Talking out of my ass. . . Wherever do you come up with material like that? It's pure genius that I couldn't possibly compete with. Perhaps at some point in the not so distant future, you'll come up with an original thought to contribute. Let us know when you do as we wouldn't want to miss it!

https://youtu.be/I6eQ78HCGEA

Doc - at least Ace doesn't make up his facts, because we all know you change your position on a topic to suit your argument and present opinions and assumptions as facts. When will you understand that this is a bow HUNTING site and your self serving threads about ticks is just your way of providing yourself with a platform to present your agenda. And I find it really interesting that MASS was able to reduce deer densities to 10/12 dpsm level when you have stated that it's impossible for hunters to get the herd to this level. Maybe you're forced to talk out of both sides of your mouth since your foot is always firmly planted in the middle of it.

And just prove that I'm not a heartless a _ _hole, I feel terrible that the kids at school called you names. I have no idea what that feels like but it must have scarred you for life. Was this during your undergrad work or Phd?

Bob, I probably shouldnt talk for Dr Williams, but I've only seen him note that hunters done do the job in urban / suburban areas. I dont remember him saying anything about hunters in rural lands. That said, the psychology of hunters would be interesting to review here... I'm guessing many of you are like me, I'd A.) only want to kill what my family would eat and B.) I like to see and observe deer. For both reasons I'd be inclined to pass deer and to NOT shoot every thing I get a crack at so the area would have similar numbers the following year. My gut says that some of why hunters cant eliminate urban numbers or heavily decrease them, is because, at our base, we are conservationists who DONT want to eradicate or even come close to doing that to a deer population - we like deer, odd as that may sound to PETA :)

Those are numbers that MDFW has noted related to the quabbin - whether the counting method they use is good or not, I dont know. But Ill tell you what, there are WAY fewer deer than when I was a teen or in my early 20's, so 20-30 years ago.

Interestingly, in eastern MA and areas around suburban/urban centers in the state, the deer numbers spike - more towns with limited access (written permission or even no discharge ordinances) tend to be located in those areas, and the 500 foot set back kills lots of good areas we could hunt, at least with a bow, safely.

After hunting CT, it's got me pretty convinced, that if you want more deer numbers, put in a written permission law. Ideally, I'd like to see more numbers without that - I LOVE the access we have up here (anything not posted is legal unless a town bylaw suggests otherwise). But I'm sure it's why hunting has sustained lower deer numbers here than much of the north east. Couple very free access in much of the state with increased Predator numbers and well, there are more way's for deer to be killed.

In CT, written permission really limits access, thus increasing sanctuary sites etc. Dont get me wrong, there certainly feels like fewer deer in the SW corner, and from your description the NW corner too... But overall, that written permission thing is an interesting challenge to hunters down there, and to deer (since it's not a thing in much of MA) up here.

Interestingly, much of eastern MA, and around some of the metro areas here have the highest deer densities by far, and those areas almost universally have written permission laws.

Will - to be honest with you, I don't know what Doc's position is any more because he's taken opposing views on the same topic time and time again. Is it more difficult to reduce deer herd numbers via hunting in areas where you can't hunt??? Let me think about that,.................I would guess yes??? Boy I hope I'm right.

My argument is - if landowners don't allow hunting as a means to control the deer population in their area then they should pay for their removal (dart them and move them to the NW corner for me :) BUT taxpayer money should be excluded from whatever process is used. Don't make me pay for your stupid choices.

Hi Will. Wow, refreshing to have a conversation of substance on here instead of laughably being accused of making up data. Good grief. Yes, growing up just east of Worcester in the 70s and 80s, we NEVER saw deer and the only ticks around were the occasional dog tick. Basically the rise of tick-borne disease came with the rise in ticks, and what caused that rise in ticks, increased deer abundances. In the 1970s is when Lyme disease was "discovered" in humans in Lyme, CT. Is also when CT started their deer hunting season as they felt the population could support it. Deer population growth and Lyme disease cases are highly correlated. So what happens with the dynamic is that deer populations explode, like in the Quabbin and the tick numbers follow suit. So then when deer are reduced from say 60/sm to 30, the ticks have already become well established. 30 deer/sm is plenty for ticks to sustain incredibly high abundances. So there is not really a linear relationship with deer and tick abundances, it's more like a threshold thing. At 20 deer/sm, you do see reductions in tick abundances, below 10 you see reductions in disease cases, like Bluff Point. Now like any living thing, deer ticks have a range. That range has been expanding which is why we see increased LD radiating out from the CT epicenter. LD cases radiate out in a wave so you'll see increased cases as the wave radiates out. For instance a few years ago, incidences of LD were super high in NW CT because that is where the crest of that wave was at the time but has since subsided. Basically, it's a pretty complex ecological process with lots of players which makes it fascinating to study and look at responses after manipulating different aspects of its disease ecology. The guys here just hate that deer are the main reason for the tick explosion.

We can talk Quabbin deer too if you want. I know how CT surveys deer abundances nowadays and know first hand it is the best method available for determining the actual abundance on the ground. I'm super skeptical of the way MA does it. While it may be comparable year to year, it certainly does not reflect what is actually there.

Interesting history behind the sick little creepers... Really interesting how "it" seems to move in waves away from the epicenter... And, that there seems to be a threshold corelation between deer numbers and LD.

I keep coming back to it though, is it definitely correlation with deer, or is it causation?

It just feels so much to me, like other, more common creatures would be equal or greater vessels for the disease to travel on.

The Bluff Point study area - has that been maintained at below 10dpsm, and if so, has there been a significant change in LD which has been sustained?

At the risk of starting an epic poop show, this is what you guys were after in Redding I suspect eh?

You sure nailed it when talking about extremely broad systems - it's easy to cherry pick a point, it's hard to really relate it / anchor it to a context which provides real meaning on a larger scale. Be it human or environmental study, that's a tough thing to do.

I dont hate deer being involved. But, I'm still a skeptic that it's true causation - and not simply a correlation that deer numbers and tick numbers increased at the same time for some other reason - again, very complex system.

My life work is certainly not studying this though... So there's a LOT for me to learn on this.

The Quabbin thing is admittedly my binkie. Mostly because it has been my playground for my whole life. But, being from here, I look to MDFW's numbers/info as the best available data. It may not be... but it's all we have to go on. This is an interesting paper on the topic: https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_ne302/gtr_ne302_257.pdf

I thought it interesting that they suggest the initial range to be 20-50dpsm, lower than the 30-60 number I've seen randomly in other articles/info. The early hunt was a bit more aggressive, and the take corresponded, with close to a 50% success rate. Since about 1997, the take has been under 300, most years more like 100-270. I'm going on memory for years since 2001, the year this paper ends it's discussion on. I know originally, any hunter questioned mentioned at least seeing deer - even if they were doing 100mph in full on "Get out of dodge" mode. Now, it's more common to talk to hunters who saw no deer while hunting in Quabbin, than to talk to one who shot a deer or saw deer.

With that said, If I'm understanding your point on tick distribution, if there were say, 40 dpsm in there in 1990, tick levels likely were starting to climb, and continued doing so through say 1996-97 when the deer numbers fell to lets say 8-12, close to the 8-10 the paper suggests was the dpsm avg of MA at the time (regardless of how they got em, those are what I have for numbers so I'm rolling with it) the tick population could have continued expanding. Now, with lower numbers of deer, there are still enough to sustain the tick population at above previous levels, and thus, there is greater odds of disease spread?

It kind of makes sense, but what about years 2000-today? It's been pretty stable LD case wise based on the chart you posted above... So, given there are certainly far fewer deer than in the past, are they definitely the cause, or are they one cause or are they simply correlated with it, and something else - say mice - are the root?

Similarly, that distribution included a few years with what look like spikes in LD cases. No idea why those years had higher cases. Lighter winters perhaps? Better summer weather = more folks outside? Wetter weather?

To be clear, I'm not trying to be annoying :). Genuinely interested in this, obviously have a bias in mind about it :), and I'm trying to keep growing. Cool to have a chance to ask someone who literally does this stuff for a living questions! Thanks!

We talked about ticks enough,.......... when are we going to talk about tocks?

It was mentioned that in the 70's-80's the uptick of deer is a direct corrilation with the uptick of ticks..if memory serves me right,wasnt that around the same time bayberry bushes were all the landscaping rage inadvertently causing the mouse numbers to skyrocket..i also remember a study uconn did in the late 80's on the evasiveness of the bayberry and the rise of mice and lymes...

Not me. U2?

While UCONN has done lots of work with barberry looking at sterile cultivars and such, linking its presence with deer ticks and the Lyme bacterium was my research done in collaboration with UCONN. One reason so much barberry exists on the landscape is that it is very browse resistant and overabundant deer consumed everything else, releasing it from competition. UCONN has a way of taking credit for research that they are affiliated with...

Bob,

"Doc - at least Ace doesn't make up his facts, because we all know you change your position on a topic to suit your argument and present opinions and assumptions as facts."

Interesting you should say that given the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) actually does produce tables, graphs, and yes, maps of lyme disease cases by state. All the data you could ever want, a mere search enginge/mouse click away.

Now Bob (and I'm sure Ace too) I'm sure you can follow this logic:

FACT-The CDC publishes lyme disease statistics by state (the link will help those slow on the uptake or predisposed to make stuff up (or pull it out of an orifice-I put this in for you Ace).

FACT-the are incidences of lyme disease varying from low to high and in between.

FACT-there are deer living in many of the states represented on the map.

FACT-there are varying #'s of deer (easily confirmed by checking each state's DNR or whatever name the agency goes by)

FACT-by comparing the last fact with the first fact one can easily ascertain what the relationship is (if any) between deer numbers and lyme disease incidence.

All of the above is ridiculously easy; both to find and to comprehend.

Absent any predetermined bias it's really as simple as 1 + 1 = 2 (well for most of us here).

Carry on you two, as I mentioned it is never beyond my time constraints to engage in a productive, fact-based discussion.

"All of the above is ridiculously easy; both to find and to comprehend."..so easy even a notme could figure it out...lol. thanx bud ,it was almost in normal language

Doc, I have always wondered why the incidence of Lyme hasn't become more homogenous over time. This article said that the distribution of barberry was very similar to the distribution of Lyme. So, if I understand it correctly, the barberry is dense enough to maintain humidity for the tics, which feed on mice during their larval stage. Loss of wolves has caused coyote numbers to increase, and in turn, the coyotes have chased off the fox that dine on the mice, allowing the mouse population to explode.

I will double check next time I'm there, but I'm pretty sure Home Depot sells Japanese barberry. Why not ban further introduction of this invasive plant? We have no issues about banning firewood importation.

Mike's link looks as though the prevalence of Lyme decreased slightly in the midwest after 2011 whereas New England continued to expand and get darker. Does that parallel any changes in wolf/fox #s out west?

Mike, I'm glad to see you've modified your "facts" based on our back and forth on this thread. Originally you stated "FACT-the CDC publishes annual statistics per state that show areas of high lyme disease incidence with low deer densities and vice versa." which has been proven entirely false. And the link you provide, that anyone with the slightest amount of interest and access to Google has already accessed, does nothing to further help your original statement, hence your "factual" modifications. Thank you for the clarification.

I am flattered you guys tried to use my own barberry research to try to redirect me. Kudos Bob!

N8tureboy. Ha. That article was great! Yes, barberry is still not banned for sale in CT, because it is such a moneymaker. But banning it's sale is kind of like shutting the doors after the horses have left the barn; it's so pervasive on the landscape it's already too late. As far as canids, that's a big jump. Coyotes have effectively replaced wolves and fox have benefitted. It's actually the prey that drive predator abundances; increased mice and chipmunks are a function of increased hard mast and mild winters which results in increased predator abundance. Lake effects probably kept winters mild enough in the Midwest to sustain increased tick abundance would be my guess.

For Sure its a money maker but if the average home owner knew about the evassive plant,mice,tic,correlation they'd rip up the plant..maybe then the deer wouldnt get blamed for the sins of humanity..but alas poor yorick,we need the tic to hunt the deer...the quandry we face!!

Hi Will. No worries. The disease does not travel on the deer. Deer are the main hosts for 90% of adult female ticks, but they pick up the pathogens from small rodents and birds during bloodmeals in their juvenile stages. With increased deer abundances come increased tick abundances. To address your Bluff Point and LD inquiry, see image above. Deer densities have been reduced sufficiently in areas of an insular nature as Mike has pointed out, and in Redding, yes, a portion of the study was to see if we could do it in a non-insular setting and that answer was no, for a variety of reasons. As far as the 20-50 dpsm originally in the Quabbin, that is a huge range and the paper you provided was from a symposium and not peer-reviewed which makes that range a guess by the authors and therefore, not reliable. And the old management strategy of saturating the woods with hunters does not lead to fewer deer on the landscape; it lends itself to more educated deer who know what is coming next year and get out of dodge that much more quickly. MDC has succeeded in lower deer abundance yes, but I suspect they are as smart, if not smarter, than Fairfield County CT deer over a bait pile in the middle of the night. And yes, deer abundances are sufficiently high in your area to sustain ticks. What’s more is that in areas of “lower” deer densities, juvenile ticks will prioritize bloodmeals on rodents, which then elevates the percentage of ticks that are infected with pathogens. So while more deer = more ticks, more deer = lower % of infected ticks. Rodent abundances fluctuate year to year with available hard mast. So in acorn years, as all hunters know, fewer deer are killed. Also mouse numbers go through the roof. So with fewer deer killed and more mice on the landscape, tick numbers explode as the percentage of ticks that successfully feed is increased, particularly after a mild winter. Here in CT it seems like there is a tick epidemic this year and people are in a panic and spraying chemicals all over their yards and themselves.

According to the CDC fact sheet that shows the incidence of lyme disease by state; CT has not seen an increase in the number of reported cases of lyme disease between the years of 2005 - 2015 with 1,810 - 1,873 in each of those years.

There have been higher and lower reported case in some years, but this is far from the picture painted by some that the disease is running rampant and we need to kill more and more deer to control it.

It was also pointed out to us that in the past many doctors didn't consider lyme disease when seeking a diagnosis for their patient's ailments and today they are much more aware of this as a probable cause, so this would indicate that the medical community is diagnosing more cases today that in past years were overlooked. With that in mind I would hardly call this a critical issue requiring killing more deer. Every 75 seconds someone is bitten by a dog in the USA, so should we go out and kill all of the dogs since this is a far greater issue than lyme??

Scott, I was incorrect about the Quabbin deer densities. According to this article, the biologist states 12-16dpsm. http://www.telegram.com/news/20161203/opening-day-draws-scores-of-hunters-to-quabbin

Thanks Shawn. 10-16 dpsm is basically the same thing. I'm just trying to find out if anyone in MA actually counted live deer to come up with that range. So far, it's a no. I guess I'm confused how live deer density estimates can be derived without actually counting deer.

They use the 2X factor Doc. You know,.....science! :) There's a pattern here folks. Redding counts were in dispute. Staten Island counts were in dispute. And now Mass counts are in dispute. And who's at the center of each of them? Let's all say it together,..........DOC!

It must be difficult life for you Doc, you know, living with all of these ignorant people around you.

Buhhhhhh. I've never used a correction factor of 2. Ever. Get your agencies straight.

Buhhhhhhh, I never said you did!! I knew you skipped your English classes Doc. I said "THEY use the 2X factor Doc." See! The sentence is explaining what the MA people did when counting deer as a reply to your question on how they came up with their dpsm count. Are you feeling a bit guilty I wonder? You do know who DID use the 2X factor, right???

Dr Williams. To my knowledge, all deer counting in MA is based on kill numbers - be it in or outside of Quabbin. They have done some cool deer "tracking" studies to see how they move over the year, my favorite of which presented something hunters in the area have described for decades, though on an extreme scale - a buck traveled 13 miles to get to his winter range, then back. The winter range happened to be Quabbin.

That's actually an issue local's have. If you get snow prior to a quabbin hunt, much of the best winter habitat is in the res, so deer shift areas into the reservation and thus, deer from all around are whacked in there.

Off topic though...

"What’s more is that in areas of “lower” deer densities, juvenile ticks will prioritize bloodmeals on rodents, which then elevates the percentage of ticks that are infected with pathogens."

This is sort of an "ah ha" moment for me. So, once tick populations take off, if the deer numbers are reduced, there could initially be a surge in LD due to increased feeding on rodents, then it would fade as the low deer numbers lead to less adult tick survival and ultimately fewer ticks.

Could you reach the same end by figuring out a way to reduce rodent populations?

I'm assuming that is ultimately impossible given the impact rodents have had on the world, and the place in the food chain they strongly hold... But as a theoretical, if you wiped out rodents, would that have the same impact, ultimately, as aggressive deer population reductions (on LD)?

This is interesting, and it's been good stuff to learn about. Thanks!

(PS - go fishing, hearing good things about the action on the fly for linesides :))

I agree, go fishing.

Will. Right and about the Quabbin hunts too, what if it is downpouring that day? What if it’s super foggy? What if it’s blowing 40 knots? All would severely limit take on a one or two day hunt. Like you said before, if MA uses a harvest based system, that is not ideal for estimating deer abundances. Sure great for comparing relative abundance year to year, but using that to estimate live deer abundance on the ground is tricky. The link here shows distance sampling done at Blue Hills to come up with a whopping 85 deer/square mile of deer habitat! I guess I have a problem with guessing how many live deer are out there by counting dead ones. Seems you would want to count live ones. . . And I am not sure why the same hunt strategy was used at Blue Hills as at the Quabbin. Smaller land area with a heck of lot more deer.

And your “a-ha” moment is correct. However, with more deer comes more ticks but fewer are infected, but with fewer deer come fewer ticks, but a higher infection prevalence. So in areas of high deer densities, your chances of encountering a tick are high. However, where densities are low, if you encounter a tick, chances are that it is infected. I guess we could hire out professional trappers to put out millions of snap traps throughout the state during high mouse years like last year!

Interestingly on Monhegan Island, ME, all deer were removed by a professional sharpshooting outfit. And tick abundances dropped significantly, but did not disappear altogether. There were limited small mammals on the island similar to Block Island, but the ticks host switched and were able to persist and were able to sustain infection with Borrelia through the local introduced rat population. Pretty amazing actually.

Interesting stuff! This raises a question though. If you have high deer numbers, and drop them, would there be a short term (say 1-2 years) spike in LD due to reduced deer for the ticks to use as hosts?

Ultimately, to me, it's feeling like in a free ranging population of deer, especially a relatively rural one, "we" tend to under estimate the deer population (which makes me feel bad about my hunting prowess ;)). But, we are able to "see" trends or changes on a gross scale. For example, Quabbin when I was 15 V Quabbin today with me at 43 - MASSIVE difference.

The clear issue overall though is that this is a sociological issue as much as it is a biologic one (are they really separate, I don't believe so). In other words, I know for me, and I'm sure others on here, I'd rather see more, healthier deer. If that meant a real 40/sqmi, so be it. I dont want to see tick illness, that's not good for anyone. But my gut, says that hunters have such a strong sense of fair chase and conservation, coupled with a love of watching deer... thus, knowingly bringing numbers of deer super low is just not going to fly within that "culture".

So, while ticks and deer correlate, I dont know that hunters ever really are going to be the population control tool to get low enough deer numbers to make a difference. "We" dont want people sick, but "we" also dont want such a low deer population. I mean, if we are calibrated to estimate low, and the population is cut in half, ooph.

That said, my belief is that hunting, from a hunters view, is really not about population control at all. Thats a nice side effect, but I dont know many people who REALLY go out to do that. Again, a cultural issue which would limit the use of hunters to really crush deer numbers.

Taken further, in today's day and age, with "our" attention span, it's a catch 22. Far fewer deer, will = far fewer hunters and ultimately, whatever management tool "we" were will fade away as the activity of hunting is basically washed away.

I'm talking in circles all over the place. In the end, I'm coming to see this as a really complex issue which may have some solid points, but is really tricky to deal with given the broader impact it has on people in multiple directions.

Hunting was NEVER intended to control ticks and lyme disease. That would be like killing dogs to control ringworms in people. PETA and the hunting community would fight against any plan to wipe out or severely reduce the deer population as the remedy to lyme.

When deer are reduced, we see a temporary amplification in infection prevalence of ticks with various tick-borne pathogens, yes. You also see a perceived increase in the number of ticks seeking hosts as whatever deer that were there were removed and can no longer serve as hosts. As far as increased Lyme disease cases, probably, but that depends on human exposure to infected ticks.

And your sentiments about hunters and hunting is spot on. And fear of hunting being washed away is the biggest fear I have as well. I get the hunting culture, I get tradition, I get all that. I hunt and grew up in central Mass with that hunting culture, fair chase, clean kills, not wasting any harvested game. But the majority of the CT public didn’t. Hunting = death and that’s icky. In an urbanized state like CT where there are a lot of people and a lot of deer living in close proximity, zoonotic diseases become a problem. Where the hunting tradition can stay alive as hunters age out, is by serving a public need, deer management. When hunters say they can do, and don’t do it and sharpshooters need to be brought in to finish the job, then the public see hunters as ineffective. I guess my point is that you can sell hunting to the public as a public service to help reduce car accidents, tick-borne disease, landscape and ecosystem damage, but you can’t sell the public tradition.

Doc - you test the truth to suit the purpose. If, by your own words, hunters can reduce the deer herd in open spaces but not suburban areas like CT, then the problem is not that hunting is wrong tool to decrease the herd. The problem is people don't want you to kill the deer on their property and therefore refuse to allow it, either by hunting or sharpshooters! Come on Doc, you just stated it above,......killing deer is icky!! So what difference would it make to soccer mom who is killing them?

If lyme disease is causing a health threat then find a way to cure or prevent it, because people don't want the deer killed. Wildlife in the road is problem you can't cure, whether it's a deer or your neighbor's dog, the answer is education, undistracted driving (a bigger problem today) and driving defensively. If the people in suburbia don't want the pretty deer killed, then they will be the roads and their backyards eating their landscaping.

Good morning Bob! Here's some reading material for you regarding deer vehicle collisions.

Just what everyone expects from you! An unbiased article from your good friend and the owner of a sharpshooting outfit, Tony D!!! What a surprise.

Let's look at your own words Doc.

Doc says hunting wont work because - Soccer moms in suburbia don't what deer killed, it's icky. But Doc also says - soccer mom's would love to have sharpshooters with high powered rifles at night in their back yards killing deer and splattering blood and guts all over the swing set because that's the only method that would reduce the herd.

Doc - you can't say that killing deer is against everything holy in a state like CT and then change the name of the process from hunting to sharpshooting and tell us it's acceptable. Your agenda is to promote your friend Tony's business, nothing more. Killing deer is killing deer. It's either acceptable or not. If homeowners in suburbia refuse to open their land to hunting because they don't want the deer killed, then I say make them pay to have them removed some other way. As I taxpayer I would refuse to support paying a sharpshooter year after year after year etc. It doesn't make economic sense nor does it meet the public's needs,.......don't kill deer it's icky.

And do less deer = less car/deer incidence. Absolutely and I never said it didn't. Not sure why you even posted the article. Oh wait! To promote WB and Tony D. Got it!

"Wildlife in the road is problem you can't cure, whether it's deer or your neighbors dog."

--Bob

What's your point? "LESS" does not equate to a cure for road kills. Should have never skipped those English classes Doc.

What's your point? "LESS" does not equate to a cure for road kills. Should have never skipped those English classes Doc.

What's your point? "LESS" does not equate to a cure for road kills. Should have never skipped those English classes Doc.

What's your point? "LESS" does not equate to a cure for road kills. Should have never skipped those English classes Doc.

I guess I really didn't understand Doc's last point! Must be getting the shakes in my old age :)

Article called: The Dangers of Blending Politics and Deer Management - by Kip Adams of QDMA

Very relevant to this discussion.

"Wildlife is a public-trust resource. That means wildlife belongs to the public, and its management is entrusted to our state and federal wildlife agencies, which are required to manage using scientific principles and the best available data. Given this, is it safe to assume our wildlife professionals have the final say on wildlife management? In reality, the answer is “not usually.”

The rest of the article is at the link.

Ace

thanks for the link to the article, I found it interesting. A couple of things jumped out at at me.

"Hunters need their state wildlife agency, and the agency needs hunters. It’s not good when hunters circumvent their agency, nor is it good when agencies don’t listen to their hunters. "

And - "I fully realize not all agency biologists will share your deer management views." Let me think who that one would apply to?

The heart of the article from my point of view is that wildlife professionals have less of a say in wildlife management today than they did years ago because politics has gotten in the way. But both sides of the equation, hunters and professionals, need each other and should work together. I have first hand experience with cooperation from wildlife professionals, and then again, I've also experienced disdain for my comments (not that it ever stopped me from repeating myself).

But when the biologist has a biased view and conflicts of interests in game management techniques, I chose to work around him.

My point is that fewer deer = fewer deer-vehicle collisions. It’s right there in the title of the paper. You said “Wildlife in the road is problem you can't cure, whether it's deer or your neighbor’s dog.” If there are fewer deer, there will be fewer deer in the road and fewer vehicle collisions with deer. Problem cured. We published on that. You should read it. Here is an excerpt:

“It has been demonstrated that DVCs increase as local deer populations increase (Hygnstrom and VerCauteren 1999, Etter et al. 2000, Hussain et al. 2007, Grovenburg et al. 2008, Rutberg and Naugle 2008). One could logically conclude that a reduction in deer abundance would lead to a decline in DVCs (Mastro et al. 2008). The only way to reduce deer numbers efficiently and effectively is through the removal of deer from a local population (DeNicola et al. 2000, Rutberg et al. 2004).”

Good article Ace. Kip is a smart guy. The take home message is that hunters need to work with DEEP instead of railing against them.

And Bob, you seem confused. I can only presume you are talking about me here and not Howard or Andy: “But when the biologist has a biased view and conflicts of interests in game management techniques, I chose to work around him.” What you do not understand, or have forgotten, is that I do not work for the “state wildlife agency.” Here in CT, that is the Wildlife Division of DEEP. I have nothing to do with deer management decisions here in CT.

Bob, glad that you liked the article, just remember that some Biologists specialize in Deer (or other Game Animals), and their management, and others relate more to blood sucking parasites.

Ace - what I scratch my head about is how did we get here? How did government and politics get so big that it's into our personal lives so deep?

Doc - twist and turn, but you but you're so obvious in your attempts to cover up your mis-quotes and mis-information. Something isn't CURED when it's simply reduced. If you believe that "reduce" equates to "cure", then I look forward to your paper in Ticks Today stating that a lyme disease cure has been has been discovered. All we need to do is reduce the incidence of lyme by, oh, I don't know, 15% (that's reduced) and tell the other 85% they're cured. Sounds stupid, doesn't it. I know that because you said it.

And I'm fully aware you know nothing about state wildlife and how to manage it, you make that perfectly clear by your comments. What you know about is insects, so once again I suggest you go to the insect forum and educate that ignorant crowd.

Haha Bob! Joke's on you yet again! Ticks aren't insects, they're arachnids, like spiders!! Hahaha. I'd suggest you quit broadcasting just how ignorant you are about CT wildlife, its management, ownership, and blood-sucking arachnids. You and Ace are quite a team! You guys can't help yourselves! Isn't this fun!

And where did I say "ticks are insects?" In fact, I never even used the word tick in my last post. Or, are you saying ticks are the only thing you studied and work on? That would explain a lot.

And you do it avoid the comical statement you made that reducing deer/car incidence equates to curing it. Your foot must be all wrinkled by now, it's been in your mouth for such a long time.

Register here to reply to this topic