Goverment approved vaccine
Connecticut
https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-03-27-u-s-government-approves-sterilization-vaccines-to-reduce-deer-populations-depopulation-vaccines.html
And who will we pay to administer this fix???????
HSUS had been experimenting with various formulas of immunocontraceptives for 4 going on 5 decades. Now ask yourself why WB opts for surgical sterilization when non-lethal options are implemented....
Like it or not, this is probably the future of game management. They may not have figured it out yet, but they will.
All the more reason to move sport hunting away from being so dependent on game management for its justification and survival.
I don't agree. Hunting should justified by game management, sport, food source, renewable resource, environmental protection, etc. Hunting is a basic part of our existence. We are part of nature and part of the food chain. I'm not willing to give back any part of it.
Toonces, I feel that way as well. What hunter wants to see less game or wakes up thinking "I can't wait to go manage the herd"?
I'm generally a science guy... but on this, I'm a believer in using that as a second or third point in favor of hunting. Healthy food, a strong relationship with the environment, environmental stewardship, a connection to my historical roots as a human being (the origins of our species), and sustainability all factor in. Management matters as well. I just think we need more reasons to validate what we do.
I am not saying management can't be brought up as a plus, but I think hunters have become too ingrained by going to game management as the first and best argument.
A friend of mine who was going down the wrong path in life credits hunting with saving his life, very literally. That is powerful stuff. Also the organic food movement seems to be embracing harvesting, processing and consuming your own meat which is also something to trumpet.
In my opinion we should be promoting how hunting makes people better people not how hunting helps manage wildlife. Wildlife managers can eventually replace hunting with a better tool. Hunting has a unique benefit to people that can't be replaced. That is where we should be going.
Toonces, I agree with your post above and Will's comments as well. Hunting is so much more than taking game. You learn to respect nature, gain a better understand of our place in the food chain, understand where are food comes from, take responsibility for the food on your table, free range organic, etc. And yes!!! Hunting can help people in crisis coop with life and learn to really live again. All good stuff!
Those of us who enjoy the organic meat may soon be eating venison injected with "vaccines", yum!
https://youtu.be/2Oq24hITFTY
Ace - great point!!! What if someone gets ill or even worse dies after eating a deer that has been injected with some time of drug that wasn't thoroughly tested on humans who eat it? Huge liability issue there.
8:24. Again, this is nothing new. These vaccines have been experimented with for decades. Animals injected are required to have ear tags with human consumption advisories. Heck animals injected with capture drugs are required as well as it takes 30 days for them to metabolize. Use of these experimental drugs is regulated by the state agency in which they are being used. Nothing they have not seen before. I think Toonces’s world view is a bit more broad than most hunters. I think he realizes hunting is not the only solution for deer management. If hunters actually managed deer, maybe it would be used more frequently. Until then, there will always be instances where non-lethal options are in play, like it or not.
That's it exactly Toonces. Mgmt is part of it... But hunting is way more, way bigger, and way more valuable than just as a mgmt tool.
Dr Williams. You have noted that before, about hunters not managing deer... I get the spirit of the point... But isn't that, to a degree, a bit of a broad stroke.
For example, in MA, areas where state law stands (no written permission required on private land and anything not posted is legal) deer numbers have been low for decades. But towns where local bylaws require written permission - BOOM, lots of deer in those towns, and along the periphery.
In a state like CT where it's all written permission, how effective can hunters be from a purely deer numbers perspective? Seems like an impossible mission.
Hey, Ill take blame too though - for the "hunters dont manage" thing. I'm not going to shoot every deer I could. And if I get a couple, or one big one first thing, it's possible that I wont shoot another despite continuing to hunt - I may just sit there and watch, never taking my bow off the hook or shouldering a gun. I want to see deer, I want my kids to see them, so yeah, I'm not shooting every one I can.
Just looking for clarification on that point. I suspect it's my second point that you are getting at (which I'm fine with, I want a different experience is all), but I'm curious how the two intermingle given they certainly impact deer (or other animal) management?
12:30. Certainly access is a big deal to manage deer. While we in CT need written permission, in areas where there are lots of deer and lots of people (Zones 11 and 12), we have a 4.5-month archery season, Sunday hunting on private lands, zero distance setback for release of an arrow, baiting, and unlimited replacement antlerless tags. So despite needing written permission, a CT archer in Zones 11 and 12 can shoot as many deer as they want on properties they have permission on for 38% of every year. And yet in places like Redding (Zone 11), where deer are being hammered by guys and encouraged by the Town, densities are bottoming out at 35 deer/square mile. Which is still a LOT of deer. So even where hunting is permitted and encouraged, reductions are minimal. Yet you still have guys on this site actually advocating for hunting as a management tool in NYC limits! If it doesn’t work where access is encouraged and facilitated, what makes guys think it will work where there are 8,000 people/square mile and virtually zero access and you know, public safety and perception? It’s lunacy. As a result, there will always be locations where non-lethal means are the logical answer, though may not be as effective as lethal means, but more acceptable and people are willing to pay for that service. It is just fact.
Doc - love the way you state partial information to form your conclusions and then state them as if they were facts. First of all, if Redding is hammering deer and they still have 35 deer/sm, tell me how many acres are open to hunting in Redding? Private and state land? You can't!! So if 95% of the land in Redding is private and only 10% of that is open to hunting by landowners, that leaves LOTS of space for deer to roam. And don't forget, you have told us repeatedly that deer will go to those areas where they're not getting shot, while other areas will have little to no deer. Now tell us how any other method would reduce the herd in Redding if landowners don't let the DEEP or WB on their property? Oh wait, I know the answer. The decrease would be minimal at best. Why? Because most landowners would still not allow outsiders on their property, so access to where the majority of the deer are would not happen. So you see, hunting is not falling short of the goal, it access to the land that is the missing puzzle piece, and not just for hunting, but all means to control the population.
I can't wait to see what NYC mayor Bill tells the voters in 2-3 years when the deer problem has not decreased, but continues to increase, just at a slower rate. Those does that continue in heat will attract more bucks who will swim across the island, and they're not snipped. And I don't need a doctorate from Cornell, but I can still determine the outcome for the SI project. The only reduction on the island is in the taxpayer's pocket. SAD!
"In a state like CT where it's all written permission, how effective can hunters be from a purely deer numbers perspective? "
Will, Apparently well enough so that when an outfit, let's call them White Buffalo, come in to count ticks, and has to have the deer very very still to do so, so they get permits to kill several hundred of them (because dead deer lie very still), using rifles, and bait, at night ... they can only find and kill a small fraction of that number. And somehow the tick counting part gets forgotten about as they lay the blame at the feet of the hunters, you know, the ones who couldn't kill enough deer to manage the numbers.
But then that's just one (former) Deer Warden's opinion. When we managed the hunt, many deer were killed, much meat was donated, reforestation occurred (the reason for the hunt in the first place) and not a single complaint was logged. When WB came in, things went sideways. Next up will be more tapdancing from a large bearded man.
:-)
Ace - and don't forget the cost!!!! Please look at the Block Island thread I just posted, you're gonna love it!!!
Bob, so if hunting in Redding can’t work because of limited access, why would it work on Staten Island where there is far greater limited access and 30 times the human population density??? That does not make any sense, not to mention it is still illegal.
Ace, WB was contracted to kill deer in Redding, and they did. 87 of them which were all donated to local charities. They had nothing to do with counting ticks. “Not a single complaint was logged?” What about all the Dave Streit drama? What about Glen and all that non-resident drama and him photographing and posting replacement tags filled out by the teenie boppers at Redding Ridge Market? What about all that Fairfield County Municipal Deer Management Alliance drama? Come on man. Give us a break. That was all aired very publicly on this site.
Yup, just as I predicted, tap, tap tapping away ... not so light on your feet I see. 87 deer? In what 3 years? Super Proud of that I guess since they were supposed to kill 150 the first year alone. But I bet you slaughtered the hell out of those ticks with your fancy bait boxes!
Not 1 complaint from a resident about the way the hunters acted and performed Doc, no safety issues either. Of course once Tony and White Buffalo showed up, then residents had issues with guys with rifles skulking around at night, violating the agreed-upon rules. All the drama came later when you and your buddy came to town, but then controversy seems to follow you and Tony doesn't it? (Rhetorical Question Doc, no lie is needed in response). (See Staten Island and Block Island thread).
Bob, isn't it grand when a non-bowhunting blood-sucking parasite expert pretends to know so much more than us rubes and insists on defending the losing side of every argument? I heard that those guys from Block Island have formed an LLC, gonna give old what-his-name a run for his money I bet.
Is Doc the test pilot for the legal pot program in CT? No complaints about WB in CT? Really? I saw one that was printed on this site from the resident of a house who stated a WB guy was in his driveway without his permission and he filed a complaint in writing and that complaint was ignored. Is that what you mean by no complaints. That's like Hillary saying there were no bad emails, including the tens of thousand she withheld? Love government officials lying and thinking the public is stupid enough to believe them. I guess you still can't find a tick site to participate in huh Doc? Stay here though, I love hearing your nonsense.
Ace. Here is a link to the paper I wrote on the Redding project. You can see here deer reduction was just one component of it. Let me know if you have any questions.
And which is it? Was 87 deer too many or not enough? You can't have it both ways.
I have a question: was it 51 or 87?
Follow up question: Is 51/250 a good result? How about 87/250?
You criticizing WB for not killing enough deer in your former hometown also borders on lunacy.
No,no,no Doc. We're not criticizing WB for not killing enough, that would be way too easy. We're merely pointing out that WB FAILS to deliver the results they were contracted to deliver. FAILURE is what we're pointing out. And they FAIL after you allowed them to be paid, what was the final amount Doc, $174k? I know you won't confirm the total paid, that would be too embarrassing. I love starting the morning pointing out your mistakes and confusion.
8:27. Keep telling yourself that Chief. If hunters are so much better at reducing deer than WB, why is WB still in business?
Dr Williams, I dont disagree with you on the states set up for hunting, especially SW CT. It's very liberal. BUT, the function is not. It's not easy to get private land access down there. And if you do, and it's on a 2acre bit, even baiting, you dont have great odds to take a huge number of deer.
I know a few guys do. They are very good hunters, hunt lots of areas, and many private spots are fairly big.
That said, I still default to the key: most hunters are conservationists/environmentalists. They will kill what they can use, but just shooting deer to donate them - I think that's less usual. For me, I know my family can eat 1-2 turkey's, and 1-2 deer per year. As the kids get bigger, I could see 2-3 deer. I know some folks families can eat more. It's hard to motivate someone to just go kill animals you love seeing and watching (as well as eating) if you are just going to give the animal away.
I may just be speaking for me though?
Doc, give me a high powered rifle, night shooting, bait, access to public/private land and watch the numbers i deliver. So WB is not what you make them out to be. They're still in business because there's a sucker born every minute, like mayor Bill. And it doesn't hurt to have someone like you to get them into CT even though it's a conflict of interest, but that never stopped government employees before.
12:14. Agreed Will. But having an arrangement like MA where private land is open to hunting if not posted cannot happen in SW CT. The signage would be ridiculous and what are you going to do, jump in someone’s swingset in Darien and set up there without their permission? The point is that in these areas of CT written permission is a necessity given the urban nature of our state. Realizing that taxes prohibit large acreage landholdings in SW CT, the DEEP has allowed baiting in an attempt to leverage deer onto legal, albeit, smaller properties. And while there are tons of deer in these areas, there is not the same hunting culture that exists in central and western MA. Soccer moms are the norm not trappers and archers. The irony is that as soccer moms and development move in, so do the deer but traditional hunters are forced out. This is why it is hard to secure access and those private pieces big enough already have guys hammering away. I do agree it is hard to motivate hunters to kill beyond their means, that is when financial incentives like bounties and commercialized sale of venison are being explored, to incentivize guys to harvest deer beyond their own personal use. Bob the traditional archer seems cool with the $150 bounty/deer on Block Island because $$ is not going to the devil WB, but I find it curious he is all in support of commercializing the resource, or perhaps he is too stubborn to speak against it. Recently, the Northeast Section of the Wildlife Society put out a Position Statement on the management of overabundant deer with help from all the state deer biologists in New England, the mid-Atlantic states as well as the eastern Canadian provinces that includes the same. That can be seen in the link provided.
Doc, what I'm for is PRIVATE LAND OWNERS to do whatever they want when it comes to problem deer on their property. Shoot them with a crossbow on SI or allow hunters on their property and have the Block Island municipality pay them A LOT LESS than WB. Pretty simple, so you should be able to understand it.
15:12. “PRIVATE LAND OWNERS” can already allow hunters on their properties in every state in America to address issues with problem deer, within the regulations set forth by each state. All deer, even problem deer, are a publicly-owned resource and do not belong to the private landowner, so that kind of prevents them from doing “whatever they want when it comes to problem deer on their property.” So if all private landowners can dictate how deer are managed on their own properties using hunting, and if hunters are superior to sharpshooters which FAIL all the time, then why are there still overabundant deer issues (like in Staten and Block Islands) and why is WB still in business? If private landowners on Staten Island can legally kill deer by DEC permit, why have exactly zero deer been killed in this manner? The NYC stockbroker wakes up even earlier than usual on his SI property, whacks a deer with a shovel, guts it, disposes of the guts where? Hangs it where? Then jumps in the shower, washes off the blood, and heads for a day of trading on Wall Street? Is that how this goes? Despite the ridiculousness, what you are advocating for exists now, and yet, we are still having this conversation.
Oh Doc, you're still confused, I'm sorry. I didn't say they were killing deer, or should kill deer, or that I want them to kill deer, but I was just pointing out that with the permits that allowed they could kill deer. I was pointing out that you said it was illegal to kill deer on SI and it's not. That's all. And you have a very low opinion of stockbrokers Doc. Do you really think they can't figure out how to butcher a deer and where to put the trash? And what if they have a stupid hunter friend who can put down his beer, brag his knuckles over the SI, stop kissing his cousin, and drop a deer or two with that shovel? I bet that would work.
Nope. Never said killing deer was illegal. I did say hunting and weapons discharge within city limits was. Bob, you are not well versed enough in this field to carry on a coherent conversation. And I think we can all agree you need to go back to work. Can we petition Stanley to take you back?
Too late for the petition Doc. They asked me back before I retired. Started 6 weeks ago. Coherent is over rated. Instigator is so much more fun.
Doc, I bet your good friend Tony D from WB is so glad you brought his name to this site. Just look at all of information that's been shared about his company on this site. That's what friends are for. Maybe I should send WB an email and let him know the good work you're doing on his behalf. :)
Signed up to volunteer for WB. Put in a good word for me Doc. I'd love to learn more about being an expert.
You've shown us you are capable enough to type into Google "White Buffalo" and then start a new thread here with each unfavorable result. Go ahead and shoot him an email. I predict it will go over like a lead balloon, like when you emailed Jody. Remember?
Jody was a terrible idea, you're so right Doc. I wish I never contacted him after you said he was looking for hunters to reduce the over abundant deer population. I never meant to embarrass you so badly when he said you didn't know what you were talking about. I'm sorry that happened since I know you've had more than your share of embarrassing moments on this site. Please forgive me. ;)
Now Doc. Was that nice to say? "With each unfavorable result". You make it sound as though WB had so many failures. The stats show he meets his numbers 21 percent of the time. That's good,...,.kinda!
Let me help you with your email.
"Hi Tony. You don't know me and I don't really know what I'm talking about, but my name is Bob and I have been spreading lies and badmouthing you for years on CT Bowsite. You can read all the stuff I've said about you under my handle, "Bigbuckbob." Here is the link: http://forums.bowsite.com/tf/regional/threads.cfm?state=Ct. I tried this once previously and emailed the manager of a huge piece of land in the NW corner with half truths and misinterpretation and though I thought I was being super smart and witty, all I did was piss him off. I'm hoping this communication with you yields a different result. I'm retired now and have lots of time on my hands."
You left out the best part. Bob is an a hole and really pisses me off. He sees right through my "deflect" and change the subject routine. And don't forget the part where I don't know how to kill every deer I see and I only take mature bucks every 16 years. WHAT a loser.
Thanks for contacting Tony ony behalf. I'd love to have him join the discussion on this site, see if you can make that happen. BTW - I didn't type in any of the information about WB, it was all cut and paste. Easy peasy.
