Bowsite.com

Here's a portion of the article - enjoy!

STATEN ISLAND — The mayor's efforts to neuter deer might not win him any points from the animal kingdom, but the act has reduced the number of crashes between them and cars.

Speaking at an unrelated press conference Monday, Mayor Bill de Blasio touted an 89 percent drop in deer-related car crashes around the borough so far this year — seven this year, down from 63 at the same point last year — which coincides with the city launching its plan to sterilize deer to curb their population.

Gotta go change my pants,......I wet myself laughing!

Notme - you got me in trouble with the wife. I happen to be the "library" and since there were no magazines available I took out my phone and clicked on your link to the Mel Brooks skit. The dancing girl music was heard by my wife and she yelled out "Out the hell are you doing in there you old fart?" I had to share with her when the paperwork was done.

“Speaking at an unrelated press conference Monday, Mayor Bill de Blasio touted an 89 percent drop in deer-related car crashes around the borough so far this year — seven this year, down from 63 at the same point last year — which coincides with the city launching its plan to sterilize deer to curb their population.”

Clearly it's not the sterilizations, those did nothing to the numbers, unless the stress killed those deer... I suppose that could be the case, then the yotes/fox/coons etc that live there mowed down the carcass's really quick? Seems that would be "obvious" though given it was over 700 sterilized (or something like that if my memory is correct)...

Dr Williams, you are totally right, it's a factual statement... But it does "read" in a way which would lead someone making a snap judgement to think the sterilizations did something positive. Feels very "politically spun", like watching Fox "News" or CNBC. At least it does with my "I dont want this sterilization thing to prove viable and get people thinking it's a good option instead of hunting" bias :) (yes, I recognize that in that situation, I'm not sure hunting would have worked either - from a public perception or safety perspective)

https://youtu.be/98AJUj-qxHI

I just can't see how the program had any impact for the first 5 months.

Try nutering them.

It's an issue with politics in general today - from the left and the RIGHT. Both sides neuter (pun fully intended) information down to a level my Kindergarten age kids "think" they understand. It makes every issue more difficult to understand thanks to the perceptions created via, well, what the guy who literally wrote the book on it, Harry Frankfurt, liked to call "Bull****".

Technically true, factually not really true is what the Mayor's statements feel like. Is he trying to be deceptive, or just proving to himself that his decision worked? Feels like the latter in this case, and that makes it even harder to see the bogus reality created.

I mean, could fewer hot to trot bucks result in fewer DVC's, sure. But the magnitude of drop off in that time frame would essentially suggest non lethal means reduced negative deer impact by a margin hunting or natural predation could not, and that just flat seems impossible. Someone above noted a reduction, a significant reduction, in driving on SI, that would be a contribution, though it seems that would not take it down as low as the article notes.

It seems to me, the "real" answer when asked about this, is "We dont have complete data at this point. We are hopeful our investment will work as anticipated, and over the course of the year, we will be able to determine the initial results. Stay patient folks, this project needs years to really play out and hopefully yield the desired return on our investment in public safety."

I realize that's not a "let's keep getting elected" or "lets give a 140 character long talking point"... But at least it feels "real".

All that said, I'd pay money to see the turkey sterilization program if it ever occurred :)

Additionally, it appears as if the Mayor “misspoke” about the number of DVCs (See link). It is lower this year as compared to last (31% instead of 89%), but not as much as he initially and erroneously reported. Again, these differences are likely the cause of reporting rates.

You've always come across as a reasonably intelligent fellow; in that vein I'm interested in your opinion on a bit of a clarification; first the passage you cited:

"Speaking at an unrelated press conference Monday, Mayor Bill de Blasio touted an 89 percent drop in deer-related car crashes around the borough so far this year — seven this year, down from 63 at the same point last year — which coincides with the city launching its plan to sterilize deer to curb their population."

That in itself I wouldn't label a slam-dunk that a direct link to the deer sterilization was being made but I'm really interested in your take on the additional comments the Mayor made:

""Maybe the deer are not happy about our particular strategic approach," de Blasio said. "But that's an example where some of these policies are really working for Staten Island."

I'm curious if you would consider that to be a direct linkage of cause-and-effect; it seems to be extremely clear that this is not merely an inference it's a pretty bold testament to the appropriateness of the decision to adopt this (buck sterilization) strategy.

Interested in your feedback......willing to wait for you if you need to change your pants again.....

Now, back to Billy and Staten Island. I think Doc and I agree that Mayor Bill just being a typical politician and you can equate that to being liar. Taking credit for the numbers was the point of his comments, and if Doc can't gather that from the article, well, then nothing I can say can help him understand. I'm just tired of all politicians and their lies. Spending our money on wasted program and tick studies, and then trying to justify the expense.

Here's the bottom line for me. If in 2-3 years Staten Island is faced with the exact same issue, are they going to spend another 2-3 million? Why don't the do the same with the rats in the city instead of poisoning them? Because they're ugly rodents? It's not the government's money, and it's about time they realize that.

1. Re-reading all of the posts to this point I can't find one where anyone has called Mayor Di Blasio a liar; I've seen posts where the poster has claimed he was attributing the reduction in DVC to the deer (buck) sterilization program. As this thread is rather limited in number of posts it should be quick work to find and put in quotes any instance of any poster labeling the Mayor a "liar" (if there were any merit to this accusation).

2. There was no "second article"; the Mayor continued speaking after the quote Bob opened with.

3. The Mayor did cite the statistics (decrease in DVC's compared to prior year at the same point in time) and commented "that's an example where some of these policies are working for Staten Island."

Most reasonable people would take "working" as advantageous (as opposed to "not working") and most reasonable people would conclude the obvious reference to the highly politicized decision to opt for a buck sterilization program and as logical progression follows conclude a strong likelihood that the mayor was inferring a cause-and-effect relationship.

Most reasonable people here have a pretty good read on the situation and aren't engaged in disingenuous spinning or outright fabrication of what posters have said; again, cite one example of anyone posting on this thread calling the mayor a "liar".

Just one......

Disclaimer: evil mean words,no kiddies listening

And I am smarter than that, and that's why I called it lie. Taking 2 unrelated facts and draw line to connect them is a lie!

So what hit me between the eyes is this. Why would anyone accept the estimate provided by a contractor who's getting paid $3 mil and who's reason for being there is because there were too many deer at 527? A reasonable person would say the contractor has a biased view since he's gets paid when there are too many deer, right? More deer = more money.

Sounds to me like someone's looking for future business by inflating his ESTIMATE. 135 DPSM!! Think about that!! Take a walk in the park on the Island and you'll be saying "Excuse, can I get by, excuse me, coming through, excuse me, that's my foot you're stepping on, excuse me, excuse me,.......from the deer standing in your way :)

2,000 deer / 60 square miles = 33 deer/square mile, not 135. Where the heck did 135 come from given the numbers you just provided us?

And more deer does not equal more money. WB is getting paid the agreed amount regardless of how many deer there are. There is rarely, if ever, a bounty put on deer when professional services are used. Paying per animal harvested is sometimes used to encourage/reimburse regulated hunters to harvest more animals, like on Block.

Should that 1957 number have a: '±1000%' disclaimer?

Are the experts good at counting deer with extreme accuracy some days, then they forget how to do it on other days?

Doc all kidding aside (for the moment) do you even understand that you contradict yourself in so many of your posts? You make it so hard to take you seriously, that I (almost) feel bad because you don't even see it. Are you typing this stuff with a straight face?

WB numbers are above reproach? Scientific proven fact? Really?! A while back you swore that WB's aerial survey was dead on the money and you even had the ex-military head of the company make a post telling all of us how accurate his process is and how bad ALL other aerial survey companies are (sarcasm).

Concrete numbers? The only concrete is found is in your head if you think a company with a purely biased approach to the issue is providing facts (WB, not sarcasm)! But then again, he's your friend and you can't afford to lose your friend. That math is 1-1=0 friends. (sarcasm)

And more deer do equate to more money for WB. Why? Because if they say there are 2,000 today, then 2-3 years down the road they will look for return business, which means more money. (not sarcasm) How many times has your friend Tony gone to site and told the town leaders, "There's not too many deer here, leave things alone, you don't need to pay me big money to perform a service that won't fix the problem, I'll just cover it with a bandage and leave with my bag of money." Let me make a guess,......NEVER. (could be sarcasm, but I'm guessing it's not)

And the link to the article was provided previously, so do your own homework Doc, I'm not here to hold your hand and lead you to the numbers. (definitely sarcasm)

Here's how I view accepting the numbers that a paid contractor provides - The phone rings, you answer and this is what you hear: "My name is Apu, and I'm from the Microsoft help desk you have a problem with your computer that needs to be fixed right away. Just pay me lots of money and I will fix it." (ultimate sarcasm)

Of the 720 bucks tagged 78 were yearling bucks, using the same 92% tag rate there were 85 total yearling bucks. Again, using the 40% of the herd rate you'd have 129 yearling does and a total yearling population of 214 deer.

Here's where the wheels come off; wildlife biologists place fawn recruitment rates at 25-30%; given those numbers it's statistically impossible to have a deer herd of almost 2,000 only produce 214 yearlings. A population of 856 total deer would produce approximately 214 yearlings with a 25% recruitment rate and a population of 713 total deer would produce the same 214 yearlings with a 30% recruitment rate. A deer herd of approximately 2,000 should produce a yearling crop of 500 (at a 25% recruitment rate), more than double the total being claimed on SI.

Add in the 214 yearlings to the 2016 FLIR survey results of 527 and you've got approximately 741 total deer on SI right in-between what you'd expect for a population between 713-856 (25-30% recruitment rate).

Perhaps a point of interest is that just prior to the start of this program a change was made to the terms of the contract and that change eliminated Parks Department employees riding along with WB employees during sterilization runs.

Airrow - you're not implying that WB might counting sterilized deer the same way they counted deer on the aerial survey,.....are you? 2+2 = 22. Let's see, why wouldn't they want an independent 3rd party riding along to verify where the $3mil is being spent? Are the taxpayers really getting what they paid for? That was a stupid last sentence. If the taxpayer wants to get screwed, then yes they're getting what they paid for. In 2-3 years the problem is still there!! Even if they sterilized all the bucks on the ground today.

That's a general comment and nothing specific to do with anything here.

It feels like, as I think back over all these posts, that the complexity of dealing with massive, highly interconnected systems, creates a really challenging situation.

Introduce a profit motive (or a political position), and you'll often get a very different outcome. Spotting bad science or a poorly constructed experiment, (or pure bullshit) is a lot easier than constructing and running proper research.

Absolutely, that is what we are saying ! If you have no interest in the thread why are you posting ?

I Forgot..........Straight from Williams` mouth to your hand.

if you read some of my other posts on this thread I stated that accepting any kind of data from a VERY biased, paid contractor without verification by a neutral 3rd party should not be presented as fact. Also, countless previous post from Doc stated time and time again that the aerial surveys can be used to verify the deer herd numbers, and now he's throwing them to the side because Tony is estimating there's 2,000 deer on the island.

What upsets me a program that cost the taxpayers $3 mil and the problem is still there. They return all the bucks to the woods, and while the birth rate is reduced, in 2-3 years they're back where they started. Stupid.

What all present here do have are survey results (estimates), recruitment rates (estimates) and reported results (absent confirmation).

The reported number of 720 bucks tagged shouldn't be a point of contention; had the original contract's terms still been in effect the presence of Staten Island Parks Department employees being present in the vehicles used to locate, tranquilize and tag bucks would have provided independent corroboration of the reported results.

For whatever reason, on Sept 1st of last year the contract was amended and the Parks Department employees were removed from the vehicles. The immediate oversight they would have provided was effectively removed.

It has been reported that Parks Department employees were assured that as standard practice WB would photograph each buck tranquilized, sterilized and tagged; this certainly would satisfy an audit of the process. To date however, less than 5% of the reported 720 bucks have had such photographic evidence posted for review.

Obviously, a complete posting of those photographic records would settle the matter.

The interesting analysis that was too quickly discounted was a comparison of the reported number of yearling bucks taken being used to extrapolate a population estimate. Given the reports of an exploding deer population the standard of a 25-30% recruitment rate is certainly reasonable, and possibly underestimates the reality.

Again, using factors supplies (with reported numbers of yearling bucks by WB) the estimated recruitment class is within reason and by extension the estimation of the overall deer population is also within reason. It should go without saying that estimates are not facts and there will be deviation, high or low; that being said a deviation to the extent shown between this estimate (730-860 total deer) and somewhere between 1,918 or over 2,000 cannot be rationalized by any other conclusion than this- someone's numbers are considerably off the mark.

Which brings us full circle to the independent verification of reported numbers.

Absent those this will be another circular argument without resolution.

So, to the reading audience, if you have such evidence by all means post it and we can bid adieu to another chapter in this saga.

Likewise, if no one does then perhaps it is time to let this thread die on the vine as further charge/countercharge exhcanges are entirely pointless.

Redding, CT - WB claimed their aerial survey verified X number of deer (doesn't really matter what the number is, insert the one that works best for you), and told town officials they could easily kill X number of deer (also not important) over bait using high powered rifles at night and eliminate their tick problem and deer/car problem.

Staten Island - the aerial survey said there's X number of deer on the island and WB claims there's 3X - 4X that number AND is able to tranquilize lots of buck in an area that has people all over the place, and yet those people didn't interfere with someone using a slow, tranquilizer gun with a range way below a high powered rifle, but in Redding a guy watching the sharpshooter from his truck was the cause of not killing the X number deer they said they could easily kill. How is that possible?

IF WB is non-profit, I would demand to see their COST details that amount to the $3 mil payout for Staten Island. Let me see,..... (1) drugs to knock out the deer - $100,000, (2) sharp knife (2) $100, (3) bandages - $200, (4) some beer for the guys - $1000, (5) darts - $7000, and that would misc of around $2.85 mil. Hmmmmm, I seem to have left off a couple of zeros or moved the decimal point somewhere it doesn't belong??

Bob, once again, the City did the survey not WB. See the link. And if the quote “A low-flying plane piloted by a wildlife biologist used infrared technology to map concentrations of deer during the two surveys” seems familiar, that’s because the City paid that FLIR firm from Boise, ID to do the survey. Yup, the same one Glen paid to survey Redding, Newtown, and Greenwich. I have said on this forum in the past that she probably detects 25% of deer on the ground, and again, she detected about 500 and WB is saying about 2,000 after darting and sterilizing 720 bucks only after she detected 527 deer in total. By my 5th grade education math skills, 500 is 25% of 2,000. And if you take the 7.43 deer/square mile Glen claims in Redding from her survey data and multiply that by 4, you get pretty much exactly 30 deer/square mile which the Ag Station, DEEP, and Davis Aviation got for the same area. Kind of reminiscent of when she counted 131 deer on Shelter Island and they killed 377 deer the following hunting season. “A faulty flyover in February of 2009 detected only 131 deer, far fewer than counts on the ground. The aerial contractor, VisionAir of Boise, Idaho, did not charge the town for the $8,000 cost of that survey.” (http://shelterislandreporter.timesreview.com/2010/03/11/counting-on-deer-counts%E2%80%A9/) So this kind of blows up that I was “providing proof that Tony provided "fake" numbers” argument because the fake numbers were in fact provided by Glen’s aerial survey contractor. I guess I am not quite sure what the big mystery is here, but I am glad you too agree that they are fake numbers. . . And aerial surveys can produce accurate results, when they are done with sound methodology, but still underrepresent the actual population, but not nearly as badly as that FLIR firm from Boise, ID.

So Mike, that is a long, round-about way of saying that WB is lying? Correct? Perpetuating the conspiracy? Just so we are on the same page. . . All conspiracies are moot and dissolved if you just accept that FLIR firm from Boise, ID reports 25% of deer that are actually there.

so I would have to agree with you that the aerial survey track record of VisionAir might be in question, based upon accuracy around the past data. However, I still say that I would NEVER accept data from a biased, paid contractor. That would be like me having a metal parts fabricator telling me my specification for the part is not correct and we need to change it to meet what he can make. Letting a contractor control the critical data to any project without verification is just plain stupid, but then again, WB is playing with politicians, enough said. We would require the contractor to submit the parts to an independent lab for test results and also samples to our lab as well.

WB should have allowed a town official to ride along to verify results they are paying for. Why the town allowed to have the requirement removed from the contract is baffling to me.

Please pay attention as I will provide you one more opportunity to eschew obfuscation; what I've stated is very simply is a listing of what we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt to be fact; specifically, anything that has been independently verified can be considered beyond dispute-period.

I guess you missed the part where I offered that had the contract not been amended this 3rd party verification would have already been completed. I didn't miss the fact that you did not address this.

I guess you also missed the part where I said any poster who has the photographic documentation could also end any dispute by posting that information.

Now perhaps you might forego inferring anything and produce that evidence or, if not in your possession admit to same and endeavor to do all in your power to provide it.

Lastly, I guess you missed the part where I said if no other side can provide supporting documentation it would serve all best by avoiding a continued and pointless charge/counter-charge festival.

Now I'm hoping that your 5th grade math skills have at least an equal equivalent in your reading comprehension skill level and that you can confine your comments/responses to me to what I've said and nothing more.

So, how soon will you be posting a link to, or just the pictures of the "reported" (and different) 720 sterilized bucks on SI?

Seeing as how you want to end any speculation and all......

We'll take it as a given from your very brief response that you accept the facts regarding the original contract and oversight, the removal of that oversight and do not dispute that less than 5% of the photographic evidence has been published.

You have read the contract, haven't you?

I'd expect you to have at least a basic understanding of the subject matter.......

If the facts are all in then producing the supporting evidence should be a piece of cake.

So, how soon are those 720 pictures getting posted here?

No Scott, the data is to support YOUR point as you are the one trumpeting 720 tagged bucks is a fact. Facts require proof and you've yet to produce a single scrap of it.

When you're pulled over by a cop they don't take your word for it that you've got a license and registration; you have to SHOW proof.

"No silly. That's your job, not mine. "

What was probably "silly" of me was to expect you to man up and admit you couldn't post the proof. Given that your historical inability to do that was well established I have to agree with you; it was silly of me to expect you to act like a man.

And oh, by the way, I have no idea why you keep bringing up Vision Air with me as I've never once mentioned them on this thread. A)I know it's a handy dodge but B)it's irrelevant to the issue of your making a claim as a fact and then not being able to support it.

Try to keep up junior.....

for me the problem with this entire process on SI is it's just another wasteful spending program by politicians! Whether it's in Redding to shoot deer at night or Staten Island to sterilize them and return them to the Island, it's all just plain stupid! I really don't care about whose numbers are 3X the other's, or which aerial survey firm conducted the herd count, to me it's all just nonsense and noise.

Governmental budgets are being over spent and the taxpayer is expected to sit back and take it on the chin. Raise another tax. Create a new tax. Put in tolls. Build another casino. On and on it goes and in the end the only thing accomplished is Joe taxpayer pays more.

The Redding project - as of today, what good did it do? Is ANY problem solved? What did we get for our money? SI will be in the same boat in just a couple of years, then what? Pay another $3 mil?

Doc - I also don't understand your comments on this site as the scientist that you say you are, that's why I love to provoke you. Mike is right, you state opinion and conjecture as fact. Your credibility is lost when you do it, and you give the appearance as someone with a biased view of your friend's business. I'll be the first to admit that my comments are just based upon 48 years of hunting experience and my personal beliefs. If you say you're a scientist then you will be held to a higher degree of creditability since opinions need no proof, but absolute facts do.

As Forest Gump - "I think I'm done running now."

Glen...thank you for your opinion...even though I never asked you for it.

I can accept that you needed to correct Bob but then I would say correct Bob in your responses to Bob; adding that into your response to me is simply avoiding the reality that you can't produce corroborative proof of the "reported" 720 bucks sterilized-let's try for some level of honesty here.

Let me try to outline a few of the issues you have on this topic Scott, starting with the most obvious one; you simply haven't read the contract.

If you'd read the contract you wouldn't dismiss Bob's "follow the money" as quickly, and here's why; the contract isn't a flat-rate contract where the number of deer are irrelevant. The contract starts out (pay attention here Bob, I know you'll find this interesting) with a total fee based on a "worst-case scenario"; e.g. number of man-hours required, etc. At the conclusion of the project the final invoicing is done on what the ACTUAL numbers reveal the ACTUAL cost to be. If the numbers are less than this starting worst-case scenario then the final invoicing could actually be for less money.

Now pay attention here Scott, I know your mind has a tendency to wander far afield; stating a matter of fact is just that-stating a matter of fact. It is only an opinion when the author adds the caveat that they agree with the statement of fact.

So here is a simple statement of fact; at the end of the contract period the final payout is predicated upon the costs involved in the project of which the number of deer targeted, tranquilized, sterilized and returned to the wild is a significant portion.

Again Scott, just to be sure you don't get "so confused", I'm merely putting into print a simple statement of fact absent any opinion one way or another. If you're still confused, let me know and i"ll work up a jpeg file of a stick figures in crayon diagram just for you.

Here's another problem you have Scott; math is not a malleable object; it's more like stone; unchanging, constant. So if 40% of 720 can be extrapolated to a deer herd of almost 2,000 then 78 yearling bucks can likewise be extrapolated by the same math. If I'm losing you here, check the link you provided. You seem to indicate to Bob you're 100% vested in it's legitimacy.

Fawn recruitment rates, especially in a lightly to non-stressed deer population are almost universally accepted to be in the 25-30% range. This is where Glen had a valid point in that a fawn crop of 214 would be highly unlikely to be the by-product of a herd of almost 2,000 deer; his assessment that a herd between 730-860 deer being more likely cannot be dismissed as impossible given the reams of data that would back that reasoning. Hence, his statement that "somebody's numbers are way off" is a reasonable postulation absent conflicting evidence.

Now you also have a problem if you accept that past performance can be a yardstick for future performance. Since you've dredged up the past let's look at a few of those examples; Greenwich and Redding. In Greenwich, WB was contracted to kill 200 deer, and depending on who's figures you take the final number was either 63 on 3 properties of 80 on 4; either way, far short of 200 (the high side would be 40%). The target in Redding started at 250, the final tally was 87; 34.8% if you're interested.

WB should probably be glad that you seem to think well of them lest you start posting about how their results are "junk" and they can only get 35-40% of the job done.

Now either you're the most naturally incurious person ever to walk the Earth or you have no question at all about why on literally the start of a project the contracting body's oversight was removed via amendment, or why less than 5% of the "reported" 720 bucks sterilized photographs have been posted, or why every one of the 720 "reported" bucks weren't fitted with radio collars.

That's a lot of opportunities for irrefutable proof that went unused, seemingly by choice.

Now this is kind of for Bob, as he made the salient point about future business (which I'm sure you didn't miss though you obfuscated in a manner worth of Olympic gold); marketing is a lot about perception; I don't know if you're aware of this but WB appears to be negotiating with Saddle River, NJ for a doe sterilization program.

Knocking the socks off in Staten Island would certainly give some leverage there wouldn't it? (That was really a rhetorical question Scott and I'm sure Bob knows that)

Absent any oversight or independent verification would come in handy in crafting the desired perception by golly......

Oh, I almost forgot; in my world every result requires validation; no fudging allowed. The FDA takes a very dim view of that practice....

No, the actual take was 195 deer on Shelter Island in the 2009 Hunting Season (image is from page 17 of the attached link). And to save you the trouble of claiming it was the following hunting season (2010); that total take was 185.

A bit of research also uncovered a claim by the Shelter Island Deer & Tick Committee that bow hunting took approximately 250 deer in the 2008 season (before the Vision Air Survey in Feb 2009).

Mike - thanks for the fact checking, always can count on you to provide some "Management By Facts" to our discussions. It takes the emotions out of the conversation.

I tend to take the simple approach to any problem and so when it comes to WB I have to ask my self "What's the incentive for WB"? Well, WB get's paid to remove a deer problem, so not deer problem no money. Now if a town, say like Redding, has a lyme disease problem, the incentive for WB would be to say that the deer are the cause of the problem, even though the CDC doesn't even list "reduce the deer herd" as a means of controlling lyme disease. If Staten Island has too many deer by the politicians don't want to kill them, then the incentive for WB is to sell them a package for sterilization, even though Cornell biologists and other wildlife specialists say it's failed at the start.

So Mike does all the hard work and I sit back and just say to myself "If WB wants more money how could they spin the story?"

It appears that if the doe are not bred they continue to go into heat over and over each month, attracting bucks from far away, causing the population to remain the same even though the birthrate is below normal. Now why wouldn't Tony D from WB not share that? Can anyone say "MONEY"?

Here's the snipit.

"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.

By preventing pregnancy in does, Cornell had accidentally invented a population of buck magnets that regularly drew in new deer from the surrounding area."

This sounds like it will be worse on Staten Island since Tony D from WB says he got 100% of the bucks snipped which means 100% of the does will be signaling for bucks over and over. More money, more money, more money. I love science, it's a wonderful thing!

Hey Doc - why didn't you point this out to Tony and help him out? Some friend you are!!

"Mayor de Blasio thinks there will be no bang for Staten Island’s bucks once he launches a $2 million vasectomy plan to sterilize the borough’s male deer this fall.

Maybe City Hall should have “The Talk” with a wildlife biologist first.

“This proposal has no chance of success whatsoever,” said Dr. Paul Curtis, a Cornell University deer expert.

You see, Mr. Mayor, when a boy deer loves a girl deer very, very much .?.?.

In reality, female white-tailed deer go into heat in the autumn rutting season. They emit a powerful scent that attracts males, who chase them and battle each other until every last doe is pregnant. Normally, the rut lasts a month or two.

But with bucks shooting blanks, the does will go into heat repeatedly throughout the fall and winter. They would become “buck magnets,” according to a Cornell study.

“Every 30 days or so for up to six months, right into March,” said Dr. Bob Warren of The Deer Laboratory at the University of Georgia.

The hot-to-trot does could attract bucks from near and far for many more months — including still-potent potential mates swimming over from New Jersey.

That, of course, would be the exact opposite of the city’s goal — which is to reduce Staten Island’s deer population. A 2014 survey found 763 deer in the borough, up from 24 in 2008.

But an influx of horny New Jersey deer is the least of the plan’s problems, according to experts.

“It won’t even get to that point,” Curtis said, “because I think it would be extremely difficult to get even 50 percent of the bucks” in order to sterilize them. Even a few intact bucks can keep the herd growing exponentially. During an extended rutting season, there would be more perilous encounters with humans as the mad-with-lust bucks heedlessly run around looking for mates. Also, snipped bucks would be sterile but still have a strong sex drive. So during an extended rutting season, there would be more perilous encounters with humans as the mad-with-lust bucks heedlessly run around looking for mates.

During the 2015 rut, a young buck busted through a strip-mall store window on busy Forest Avenue and bled to death inside. Another trapped itself in a backyard above-ground pool in Annandale. Bucks gored family pets, careened into highway traffic and collided with city buses, police cars and private vehicles all across the island.

The city’s vasectomy-only deer policy would be a nationwide first. The mayor said it was chosen in part because the procedure is easy to perform on male deer.

“That’s absolutely false,” said Curtis, who has done buck vasectomies. “They do not respond well to the immobilization drugs .?.?. It is far more stressful on the animals.”

Five towns and villages across the country are experimenting with surgical doe sterilization, mainly by removing their ovaries, to control free-ranging deer. Chemical contraceptives are ineffective for more than a year or two, and culling — using archers or sharpshooters to kill a portion of the herd — is the only other alternative.

Large drop nets and clover traps can typically capture the least wary animals. “But then they get trap shy,” Curtis said. “They are that smart.”

Tranquilizer darts must be used to bring down the rest. Once sedated, a deer may be operated on in the field or taken to a veterinary facility for surgery.

“We are very confident in our proposal,” said a spokesperson for the Mayor’s Office. “It’s a smart approach that can be implemented quickly, before the problem increases.”

Does any of that sound like SI???? Show me the money!! Show me the money! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-mOKMq19zU

Here's the entire article.

ANTHONY J. DENICOLA, White Buffalo Inc., 26 Davison Road, Moodus, CT 06469, USA Abstract: Burgeoning white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) populations in suburban landscapes continue to impact communities and challenge natural resource managers. Increased deer-related damage to vegetation, ecosystems, and automobiles can exceed the tolerance of local stakeholders. We provide an overview of the potential effi cacy of using surgical sterilization to help manage populations and confl icts associated with locally overabundant white-tailed deer populations. We review theoretical and fi eld studies pertaining to deer sterilization, and provide research priorities to help guide future sterilization efforts. Recent fi eld studies suggest that sterilization of female deer remains expensive, at approximately $1,000 per surgery. Sterilization may provide an alternative management technique for reducing suburban deer herds in communities willing to endure the costs of a long-term effort and where lethal deer removal is unacceptable or impractical. Surgical sterilization is scale-limited based on the ability to capture and sterilize 80% or more of the female deer in a population and maintain that proportion of the population treated over time. Overall success will be greatest for closed or insular deer herds where the effects of immigration can be minimized.

Bob "Overall success will be greatest for closed or insular deer herds where the effects of immigration can be minimized."

Sounds like the situation in Staten Island.... except with male sterilization, not female.

720 bucks have been "reported" to have been sterilized; less than 5% of the 720 have been confirmed so over 95% of that number remains unproven.

Stick to Ticks. I like the sound of that. I think I'll make a bumper sticker for my car with that on it. I was going to make one saying "Tony D from WB" but I like that one better. I think I have a new retirement career in catchy phrases. What do you think?

"In Redding, she got 25% of what we , CT DEEP, and Davis Aviation got."

This is the first accurate statement you have made on Bowsite in the last three years. DEEP, the CAES and Davis all stated their were approximately 1,000 deer in Redding, CT., (2013-2016). Vision air counted 243 deer in 2015. The wildlife experts got it right after reviewing your data and film (2016) and only finding 25% of what was claimed; referring to your surveys as clairvoyant and a fraud !

1. The "counting" of 131 deer on Shelter Island; this has been misrepresented for years on this forum; the actual count was 57-85 and it was on a designated area roughly 1/3 the size of Shelter Island. Additionally, the count was done while nuisance hunting was still ongoing which certainly didn't help. The 131 was an extrapolated number and the problem with that practice is that deer do not assume an equal spatial distribution.

2. Block Island; the link references 2 surveys performed 2 days apart, the first survey counting 325 deer and the second counting the cited 218; the RI DEM "appears to have counted 550 deer" using the single-observer method, with the standard 50% correction. Any method that requires a 50% correction is questionable (half of 550 is 275 which is only slightly more than the average of the 2 questioned surveys, 271.5).

The link also cites Deer Task force member Paul Deane as being "comfortable siding with the lower numbers."

"“I think we’re at about 200 deer,” said Deane to The Block Island Times on March 2. “Most of the hunters think that it’s in that same ballpark."

3. Posting survey numbers post-hunting season should always add back-in harvest totals at minimum and allow for "accepted" fawn recruitment rates. Regarding the former I have distinct recollections of Ace being schooled on why deer taken in Redding prior to a survey had to be added back into to survey counts. If that is the accepted yardstick it's application should be universally, not selectively applied.

Lastly, the attached link from the RI DEM puts the combined 2015-16 hunting harvest for Block Island at 258; RI state law requires green tags to be turned in (used in reporting harvest totals) which could leave the alleged 88 additional deer taken as needing some explaining....

Bob. This is not my study. I have nothing to do with it. WB is not accountable to me or to you or to the Bowsite readership, they are accountable to NYC. So whatever verification they require for the contract is between those two entities. There is an army of people working on a project of this scale down there. Talk to them. Heck, I just ran into the Chief of Wildlife and Education at the NYC Parks Department at a conference in San Diego last month and talked to her about it. She came to my talk about the Redding project! Again, just because you guys don’t like it doesn’t mean there is a conspiracy. Here are some articles highlighting this supposed vast conspiracy of yours. Enjoy!

Here is one from 15 September that says 70 were sterilized:

http://www.silive.com/news/2016/09/70_deer_vasectomies_on_staten.html

Here is one from 21 October that says 299 were sterilized: http://www.silive.com/news/2016/10/299_deer_vasectomies_on_staten.html

Here is one from 8 December that says 488 were sterilized:

http://www.silive.com/news/2016/12/deer_mariners_marsh_park.html

Here is one from 16 February that says they were at 651:

http://www.silive.com/news/2017/02/over_1600_deer_likely_in_state.html

Here is one from 10 March 2017 that says they were at 715:

http://www.silive.com/news/2017/03/deer_vasectomies_winding_down.html

And here is the one that says they are at 720 and done for the season from 21 April:

http://www.silive.com/news/2017/02/over_1600_deer_likely_in_state.html

Every time I think you're making progress in conducting a honest argument you take a giant step backward.....

In your latest "I just can't help my lying self" demonstration you say "and you are telling us that the 346 taken the following hunting season were due to fawn recruitment?"

Wow, that would have been one helluva comeback if I'd only said that.....the problem is I didn't say anything close to that. In case your memory is faulty and to spare you the need to scroll back here is EXACTLY what I said:

"3. Posting survey numbers post-hunting season should always add back-in harvest totals at minimum and allow for "accepted" fawn recruitment rates."

To avoid any further confusion on your part Scott that would mean you would need to add the fawn recruitment to either the 218 or 325 (or the average) and that would give you an approximate starting number for the upcoming season. As most accept a 25-30% fawn recruitment rate that would be between another 55 (54.5) and 65 (65.4) or a range of 273-283, ballpark for the 218 or 81 (81.25) and 98 (97.5) or a range of 406-423, ballpark for the 325 count (if you're dying to know the average let me know and I'll be happy to provide that).

Now I'm pretty sure you knew what I was talking about but had to get around all those details you left out (that's called cherry-picking); like, why only cite the lowest count, why omit pre-survey harvest totals (when as I said you made a point of that with Ace when he didn't include that count) and why omit fawn recruitment? The answer of course is to frame the argument to your liking, facts be damned.

As to "where did the deer go in those 2 days?", I recall when a drop in your survey's numbers was mentioned you had this response at the ready; "deer have legs and a brain and move." I had assumed you meant all deer and not just the ones in Redding.

Speaking of Staten Island, what exactly did that impressive list of links prove? Trick question, the answer is NOTHING.

Where do you think the Staten Island paper got that information? Hint-the same source that removed the project oversight and has posted less than 5% of the photographic proof.

To quote you, "Dude, seriously?"....

that was weak......

You're the only talking conspiracy Doc. The rest of us are just asking for verifiable proof for the numbers that a paid, biased contractor is feeding the press and politicians, that's all. You're also the one who brought up aerial surveys and how they were wrong/right, etc. And yes, we know that you don't anything about deer. (just bugs, yeah, I said bugs).

bb - I think you hit the nail on the head with your statement "I don't know how anyone could get an accurate count." I agree with that and I know my reason for giving Doc a hard time is because in one breath he states that aerial surveys provide an accurate means for identifying deer herd densities and then when the numbers don't match his argument he turns the argument to "The aerial survey contractor is bad." Or Tony D from WB is an expert in his field, but when he doesn't tell the people hiring him that sterilization won't work or doesn't allow a city employee to verify each deer treated, he says it's not his study.

Incase i dont make it on by 11:55, lunch will be salami and provalone on toasted italian bread and cantalope followed by nicotine...lol

Ciao!

Do you know where your children are? (Sorry couldn't resist.....)

" With me stringing you guys along and your vast conspiracy allegations is just further proving the only logical explanation, that that firm's techniques are inadequate."

Which conspiracy would you be referring to ? The one where the contract was amended on Sept 1st to remove Parks Department employees from riding along? Sorry, that's documented fact.

Would it be the posting of less than 5% of the photographs of the sterilized, tagged bucks? Nope, fact again.

Would if be Bob's positing that "more deer = more money?" This one's a push on the immediate side; the contract was worded so that the beginning cost assumed a worst-case scenario, so if that was realized there wouldn't be any additional payment, just that starting point. However, fewer deer would equate to lower cost which would amount to a lesser invoicing at project's end.

If a highly successful outcome was at least perception that would certainly help in future business; negotiations are ongoing as we speak with Saddle River, NJ for a doe sterilization program.

No conspiracy on language, it's in the contract and no conspiracy on soliciting future business either; both are a matter of fact.

"Again, she justifies her methodology by saying she did this and counted this many deer over this area, and you guys calculate a density and stick to it."

You are confused again; the population estimations that have been floated have been related to the reported 78 yearling bucks tagged, the 40% of the population statistic you cited and the almost universally accepted fawn recruitment addition to estimate the yearling crop and by extension, estimate the deer herd.

It's funny how solid WB's numbers are until this one is used and shows a distinct possibility of the actual size of Staten Island's deer herd not supporting the extrapolations taken from a "reported" 720 bucks sterilized. Ever heard the expression "wanting to have your cake and eat it too?"

"Then boots-on-the-ground hunters or WB harvest or capture more than she detected and you claim conspiracy."

Again, you're confused on the facts; when 100% of the photographs of the reported total are posted then that number is documented fact. When less than 5% are posted the number is reported but not confirmed. Again, that is the fact of the matter; liking or disliking it doesn't alter that reality and commenting on the factual record is the antithesis of a conspiracy by definition.

"What is the logical explanation here? That I'm a fraud? Seriously? I have nothing to do with Block, Staten, or Shelter islands. She does! "

The logical explanation has been given multiple times; I can only lead you to the water; drinking is up to you.

And personally I don't care about Block Island, Shelter Island or Gilligan's Island; the issue is Staten Island and what has or hasn't been proven.

Period.

Mike.

You said:

“1. The "counting" of 131 deer on Shelter Island; this has been misrepresented for years on this forum; the actual count was 57-85 and it was on a designated area roughly 1/3 the size of Shelter Island. Additionally, the count was done while nuisance hunting was still ongoing which certainly didn't help. The 131 was an extrapolated number and the problem with that practice is that deer do not assume an equal spatial distribution.”

You are wrong. She surveyed the whole island in 2009 and counted 131 deer. The images here are from her 2009 Shelter Island report. She surveyed the whole island, counted 131 deer, and said her detection varied from 40-100%. I have a PDF of the report if you want it.

You also said “Any method that requires a 50% correction is questionable. . .” Sooo, by that admission you are putting into question the results of a certain firm we are discussing. Quoting from her report (and see image), “The visibility or ability to detect a deer through the vegetation ranged from 40 – 100 %. . .” So she is saying it is possible her numbers would require a 60% correction! She has the same quote included in the 2009 survey report, the 2008 report, and 2007 report. So in 2007, she estimated the Shelter Island deer herd was between 360 (100% detection) and 900 (40% detection). In 2008, between 298 and 745 and in 2009, between 131 and 328. Those are some serious margins of error. I guess what I am pointing out is even she is saying she can’t detect every deer on the ground. Her numbers are minimums, not maximums like have been touted on this site for years to call me and colleagues of mine “frauds” and “liars”. Even she is admitting this in her reports.

If we use the same correction in Staten Island, though I have not seen that report to determine if she reported any detection estimates, she’d have between 527 (100%) and 1,318 (40%) deer. Still an underestimate. Then again, there is a lot of heat pollution in cities, so I am sure that didn’t help.

And adding the 16 deer back into the Redding count had nothing to do with fawn recruitment. It had to do with the fact that we received sufficient snowfall to do our aerial survey only after those deer had been taken. And we knew exactly how many were not there anymore at the time of the survey. 16.

Parks Department employees have been cited by the local press as having been informed that all tagged deer would be photographed; less than 5% have been posted. If you don't plan to live up to a commitment, don't offer one.

"The conspiracy is that the FLIR count is absolute truth and WB is obviously lying. "

You're still confused on the facts; the FLIR count has been referred to as having confirmatory evidence of that count, the 720 bucks tagged have less than 5% of that total with same. Again, stating that less than 5% of the tagged bucks have confirmatory evidence is a simple statement of fact; the only one pushing a conspiracy at the moment is you when you insist that reporting what is fact is an accusation of any sort.

"Come on man. She admits she doesn't detect all the deer. Why can't you guys?"

Again with the nonsensical made-up argument; no one here has ever claimed she detects all the deer.

Now if you want to talk about facts offer some that explain why the contract was amended to remove Parks Department employees riding along (oversight) and why over 95% of the reported bucks haven't had confirmation posted in light of the removal of that original oversight.

Why is WB charging approximately 3 times as much for the much less expensive operation (vasectomy) on Staten Island ?

In the third year the total cost per sterilized male deer could rise to more than 4 times their charge rate of ($1,000) to approximately $4,257.00 (3.3M). Why ?

Glen. Cost per deer is a dumb argument. If WB underestimates deer abundance as you claim, then cost per deer would be super high and you'd claim taxpayer money, cost per deer, blah blah blah. But if they treat too many deer, you claim "follow the money" "WB is lying to us", "there are actually single digit deer densities." So which is it? I guess it depends on which way the wind is blowing....

Chas. Whatever.

It's 23:22 btw.

Its 5:04 am...morning coffee ...ride to work...lol

Did Tony D form WB tell the city that paying him $3mil will yield zero decline in the herd? No. Does Tony D from WB get more money if there are more deer? Yes. Did Tony D from WB allow 3rd party, independent verification of all deer treated? No.

Yeah, everything seems reasonable to me, and for the past 44 years I've worked in the purchasing/materials management field. WRONG! Another case of wasteful spending by the politicians. I could never do the same in the private sector. And Doc from the CAES is defending the process. WHY? Because Tony D from WB is his friend. That's the only conspiracy. The rest of us just look for facts.

Mike's numbers for Vision Air's survey of Shelter Island came from your link to the Cornell paper; if you read that it clearly states exactly what Mike said; 57-85 deer counted in a study area (it's under the header "Spring 2009". Why is it a google search of your claim turns up empty? Probably the same reason you didn't post a link; it only exists in your mind. The Cornell report clearly states that only designated study areas were surveyed in March 2008 and February 2009, not the entire island (and certainly not all that open water in your map).

Link to actual count as Mike reported:

http://www.shelterislandpolice.us/public_ftp/Cornell%20Shelter%20Island%20Deer%20Population%20Handout_May2009.pdf

Doc.........No one agrees with your made up aerial surveys !

There's a few obvious flaws with the snippets from the "report" you posted;

Your map of the aerial survey seems to indicate that not just the entire island was surveyed but miles of ocean. The aerial surveys were confined to 2 study areas that were 4.62 and 5.67 square miles (see your link to the Cornell study to confirm). The "Table 1" you posted clearly has 4 surveys and the label for the Table refers to 4 aerial surveys, yet immediately below the table is a comment that ends with "has not changed between the three surveys."

Doing a little selective editing? For those unaware, PDF Writer allows for the editing of pdf files.

Most people would not presume to argue specifics of a contract given that admission; in the case of your argument with Bob, you're wrong that more deer does not equal more money-up to a point.

Again, the contract was structured with a beginning cost based upon a worst-case scenario; all cost (labor, materials, etc) to remove a starting point number of deer. If for illustration the estimates the city provided for the deer population were taken on faith a possible starting point (for the buck sterilization target) could have been 500 bucks.

If 500 bucks were sterilized then the "worst-case scenario" fee would have been realized and the invoicing at the end of the project would have reflected the original $ starting point. There would be no monetary gain for sterilizing 600 bucks; the contractor would in essence, eat the added cost.

If however, the final sterilized count was 300 bucks then final invoicing would reflect a lower operating expense and the final payout would be lower than the starting point.

So if fewer deer than the estimated starting point would yield a lower final payout then it is fair to say there could be a motivation to ensuring that the starting point estimate would be met.

So to summarize, more deer than the starting estimate does not equal more money but if the actual number of bucks sterilized were less than the starting point inflating the count would translate to more money than reporting a lesser count.

*This is an illustrative exercise ONLY-nothing more. No one is being called anything, nothing is being alleged this is merely an example to illustrate that Bob's point is not an impossibility.

Where Bob is absolutely dead-on point is when he references downstream benefits from a perception of above-expected success. In his example any future business derived for SI, especially if a false perception of that outcome were taken as a determining factor would absolutely meet the more deer equals more money scenario.

Again, this is merely an illustration of Bob's point being valid, with validity not automatically equating to accuracy. Data is merely data absent supporting evidence.

Kind of like 720 bucks absent confirming evidence (or the removed oversight).

1. WB removed Parks Department employee oversight on the project on Sept 1, 2016.

2. Less than 5% of the "reported" 720 bucks have photographic evidence available

3. According to the terms of the contract a final number (sterilized bucks) lower than the starting "worst case scenario" number results in a lesser payment when final invoicing is done.

Deflections do not change a single fact.

Now let's look at another reported number; 78 yearling bucks. WB probably regrets letting that number out as it's very easy to extrapolate the likely fawn crop (215) from that number. Accepted fawn recruitment rates would then place the SI deer herd somewhere between 730-860 deer total. 40% of that range would be 292-344.

Maybe the removal of the Parks Department employees and posting less than 5% of the "reported" 720 deserves a little scrutiny.......

1. WB removed Parks Department employee oversight on the project on Sept 1, 2016.

2. Less than 5% of the "reported" 720 bucks have photographic evidence available

3. According to the terms of the contract a final number (sterilized bucks) lower than the starting "worst case scenario" number results in a lesser payment when final invoicing is done.

Deflections do not change a single fact.

None of the above was impacted by VisionAir, or by JennAir, not even by Fresh Air.......

Deflections do not change a single fact.

1. WB removed Parks Department employee oversight on the project on Sept 1, 2016.

2. Less than 5% of the "reported" 720 bucks have photographic evidence available

3. According to the terms of the contract a final number (sterilized bucks) lower than the starting "worst case scenario" number results in a lesser payment when final invoicing is done.

Deflections do not change a single fact.

None of the above was impacted by VisionAir, or by JennAir, not even by Fresh Air.......

Deflections do not change a single fact.

1. Oscar the Grouch used to be orange. Jim Henson decided to make him green before the second season of Sesame Street. How did Oscar explain the color change? He said he went on vacation to the very damp Swamp Mushy Muddy and turned green overnight.

2. On Good Friday in 1930, the BBC reported, "There is no news." Instead, they played piano music.

3. The 3 Musketeers bar was originally split into three pieces with three different flavors: vanilla, chocolate and strawberry. When the other flavors became harder to come by during World War II, Mars decided to go all chocolate.

4. Fredric Baur invented the Pringles can. When he passed away in 2008, his ashes were buried in one.

5. In the 1980s, Pablo Escobar's Medellin Cartel was spending $2,500 a month on rubber bands just to hold all their cash.

Smoothdraw - I'm going to try everything!! The reason we're going to Tuscany is we're into wine, and Montalcino and Montepulciano and Chianti have some of the best wines in the world! And the history and scenery there is also amazing. Fantastico!

I've enjoyed the Italian ridiculousness here. You guys are funny, and, are making me hungry.

The deer numbers thing. Russia. The Russians did it. This Tony guy, he's Russian ;) (wouldnt know him if I saw him).

Ok, I'm just messing around. DO NOT TAKE THAT SERIOUSLY :)

Season opens in 64 days, can't come soon enough.

One lady shared about how there's a group of people at work who don't seem to like her, and the more she talked about her story, the more this winery owner said to himself "I know why they don't like her". Finally when she finished the group was asked to share their insight with her, and people we're saying things like "Let your positive ZEN flow out to them" or "Lift your spirit above theirs" or "Your aura intimidates them". Know what he said? Maybe they don't like you because you're an a _ _ hole. They made him leave the weekend! You don't own a winery do you? I love people like that!

"The number of deer-related automobile crashes on Staten Island has dropped by 34 percent, from 47 in 2014 to 31 in 2015, according to NYPD reports.

In comparing 2015's to 2014's mating season, the drop in collisions are even more dramatic, with 25 reported collisions in 2014, compared to 10 in 2015, the police data shows.

Let's see if Tony D from WB get's into the sign deer crossing sign business now?