Bowsite.com

For work I travel, and I would like to find a place to get a quick pie before or after work. I travel to New Haven, Waterbury, Stamford and Bridgport CT for work. Which of these places would you pick if you were looking for pie?

I guess hunting is an effect TOOL to reduce the deer population in some cases.

What caused the crash and why was it opened to hunting after the crash?

GED - There are Deer in the Mattatuck state forest . spend time and finding them is one of the many things I enjoy about hunting. -Duncan

But not on Sundays and DEFINITELY NOT near Duncan's castles.

I find it strange - some people post that they see deer in every yard in CT and we have others that are asking "where are the deer?"

Where do you live is the question? I would rather hunt closer to home where I can scout and hunt every day if need be, rather than travel an hour to do the same.

Do what I do. Hunt where you can get permission.

I do appreciate the offer, but I believe you also said that you run into hikers, bikers, and other hunters there, don't you?

I like the NW corner for the solitude, not so much the spot I took you to, but the 2 other spots that I also hunt.

If ask that you share your CT experience with us as it compared to northern ME, NH, and VT. I'd be curious to hear.

The operative word there is YARD.

" When we were working in Gaillard from 2000-2005, there were on the order of 60 deer/sm throughout the property, with 120/sm at the south end and fewer as you got away from residences. "

That's FEWER as the houses get more spread out. Not more. You can agree or disagree with the densities reported in the comment I quoted, but it's telling, isn't it?

Hunting can only control the population on land that gets hunted, and as near as I can tell, it has been more than sufficiently effective on public land statewide...

can you explain how a LARGE area, like MDC by Colebrook River Lake that borders MA, and Tunxis State Forest (another large area) has seen a huge decline in the deer population when the area has always been mature hardwood?

I started bow hunting there in 1975 and saw 20 deer a day from my stand and countless others while walking in and out of the area; and today you're lucky to see a couple all season. I can see NO change in the habitat and there were bear and bobcat in that area back in 1975, so what happened if it wasn't hunting pressure?

Mis-management. And the state expects hunters to trust them to manage the herd in ANY part of the state?

Not that I am in favor of significant tag reductions, I am not.

But to answer your question it should be very apparent by now that Zones 11 and 12 are the tail that wags the dog.

I'm in favor of selective tag reductions by area. Each hunting zone should have tag limits based upon deer herd and carrying capacity.

The NW corner should be one deer all season regardless of weapon. Get one with a bow you're done for the year.

That's my educated guess, beyond that, you'll have to ask someone at DEEP. Again, wildlife are owned by the CT public, not hunters. Public dictate their management, not hunters.

When I have my son, myself and a friend hunt state forest in one day....treestands over 2-300 yards apart and none of us see a deer...on many consecutive sits....I have to wonder how many deer are actually regularly using the tract we are on. Surely it's very few.

Scott, can you offer help to the DEEP to have them look at harvest trends and low deer densities in order to bing the herd up to carrying capacity? I'm not talking about DPSM...but what the land can physically hold in order to offer quality hunting and relief to those who just want deer dead.

I have sat with Howard Kilpatrick and discussed this, and all he can offer is that if the herd falls below a certain number (but only in areas so deemed) they will consider lower tags. Why a number, rather than carrying capacity?

Point of clarification on the management by Zone vs. State Forest. The state does have plenty of tools and processes already in place to manage the forests individually.

They used to have state land lotteries for specific state forests to limit the hunting pressure, A & B seasons, one tag per hunter ect.

In fact they do manage state land differently than private already, at least as far as firearms hunting goes.

I think it is a little too simplistic an answer to just say since there are an abundance of deer on pockets of private land, therefore the state land management practices has to follow suit.

Again, unlike BBB, I am not in favor of tag reductions. I think the fact that there are less deer around will result in less deer being shot regardless of a reduction in tags.

I don't get a sense that a lot of the General Public that are upset about too many deer in Tunxis state forest. I doubt much of the general public cares one way or the other about that.

On the other hand dunters do in fact care, so why wouldn't DEEP cater to hunters in that situation and cater to the non hunters in other situations? It is doable.

The tail is definitely wagging the dog; the CT DEEP is responsible for responsible game management and that includes balancing the needs of the non-hunting public with the hunters of the state. Clearly the hunters are at best an afterthought at present.

If we follow the consensus that levels above 20 dpsm become threateningly high to a forest ecosystem and use that as our "benchmark" the entire NW corner is below that threshold, and has been for years. We've had adjustments made to a couple of zones already so in those zones it's already been acknowledged as a fact.

As for the non-hunting public's say; they're entitled to equal representation at best; when they pony up to the extent that the hunters do they can squawk all they want about whatever tickles their fancy. Until that day comes they do not have any God-given right to relegate any other demographic to second-class citizen status.

For that reason, DEEP will not reduce tag allotment as they are not trying to recreate the crazy high deer abundances of the early/mid 2000s.

When you can cite a single poster on this forum who's advocated for "crazy high deer abundance" you may feel free to continue to erect this strawman argument.

Or, you can concede that no one here has and dispense with any future showcasing of this nonsense.

Public dictate their management, not hunters.

What, pray tell, do you consider hunters to be? Illegal aliens? We're part of the same public in case you didn't get the memo.

Toonces. I'm not talking about managing private v state land. I'm taking about managing by zone. There is little variation in densities on state lands within DMZs. But yes, there are differences between state and private within DMZs.

Your confusion arises from the perpetual game of "hide the peanut" the CT DEEP continues to play.

It isn't a vast conspiracy and there aren't dark, nefarious motives, just a misapplied methodology. If you survey 10% of any town you don't extrapolate that count as a town-wide deer density.

No one is saying there aren't pockets of high concentration of deer; what we've maintained all along though is you can't project those pockets out as the norm for the entire town. You could if deer assumed an equal spatial distribution in the winter but they don't. This point is not lost on Scott Williams either; though he's danced around it with enough skill to make a ballroom dancing champion green with envy.

He knows that dog doesn't hunt, he just refuses to admit it. Unfortunately for him, like the kid who clamps both hands over his ears and repeats "not true, not true...." it is true. The misapplication of the aerial transect methodology has produced inflated deer densities and those chickens are coming home to roost.

You didn't suddenly forget how to scout or how to hunt. The deer aren't hiding behind the neighbors swingset or in the next woodlot over. They're gone.

Stick to your guns Kyle-your spot on point.

Scott, who doesn't know shit from shanola about counting deer; and has demonstrated this to us all over the last year, keeps insisting to everyone, over and over again, that according to " Scott " the deer are there, you just don`t see them..........They are hiding; and last but not least, our counting methodology is accurate ! So accurate they misplaced 900 deer in Redding, CT. Scott is so obnoxious he has become little more than a broken record ! Hopefully " Scott " will read the definition about what 'a broken record' means and shut up forever on this matter.

Just so people understand a little bit more about me as a person, (so you don't think I exaggerate), I don't just hunt. I still play basketball, run, bike, golf, hike, fish and up until a few years ago did tri-athlons, so walking long distances in the woods to scout for deer is not a problem, it's a pleasure.

I've gone out after fresh snow to places like the MDC area in East Hartland and walked for miles, all day hikes, and cut maybe a dozen sets of tracks. I know how to read topos and find the hiding spots after 46 years of hunting, so I'm no rookie to this game and yet I'm hard pressed to find the deer. I've also talked with landowners and asked them what they're seeing and they tell me the same story, not many around any more.

35/40 dpsm? NO WAY!! Mis-management by the state? Absolutely. Maybe the DEEP needs to get out from behind the desk and do what us hunters do,....look for the deer they're supposed to be managing because I can't shoot the ones I can't see and don't exist. That's why I only shoot one every 16 years!

Then why not manage state land and private land differently within DMZ's?

If there are concentrated populations of deer in pockets of private land in a certain DMZ that are not huntable, then what goes on in huntable public land within that DMZ will have not impact that private land population.

The folks in the neighborhoods still have more deer than they want and the folks in the forests have less than they want.

It doesn't make sense to set a fixed number of deer per square mile as the goal across region of diverse habitat and access, if the underlying purpose is to make the public happy.

Also where is the data that folks in more rural areas of the state or folks that frequent state forests want less than 15 deer per square mile. You use that number as the goal that vast majority of the public wants, but how was that number determined? I don't remember anyone at the DEEP ever asking me how many deer per square mile I wanted. Was there a statewide poll taken or something that I missed?

There is no agenda. There are lots of deer out there. It's just the nature of landownership in a small, densely populated, urban state like CT.

What does a majority of the public really want statewide and how did the DEEP make that determination? Was there polling done? Are the desired outcomes of the majority accomplished by 15 deer per square mile? It seems to me this is unlikely.

Should we assume that the majority of people want 15 deer per square mile just because you or the DEEP says that is what the people want? It is not something we should just be expected to accept without back up data. I have lived here all my live and the DEEP has not ever asked me once how many deer per square mile I wanted.

Nonsense; the difference is how Zones 4A and 4B are handled is indicative that the CT DEEP has the ability to recognize distinctions in the deer herd and adjust accordingly. That's sound management, not micromanagement. Information, and in particular sharing of information is how these issues will be resolved; obfuscating does not foster that process.

Can you imagine the backlash from the 4 guys on this site that constantly berate DEEP with how they are now managing 12 zones?

Hyperbole is on par with obfuscation; it adds nothing of value to the discussion and is a patently transparent attempt to provide a smokescreen to mask the underlying issue; the CT DEEP has been derelict in their duty to responsibly manage the deer herd.

To suggest that 4 individuals comprise the sum total of concerned hunters is insulting at best and sadly consistent with the dismissive attitude that permeates many levels of wildlife management in CT.

There is no agenda.

Nonsense; that there is an agenda is a point you have reinforced ad nauseum over the past few months not to mention several times in this thread. Whether it's a statewide target or a level to produce lower lyme incidence to suggest there isn't an agenda doesn't merely fall to the level of being disingenous; it's an outright lie and frankly insulting to anyone with an IQ only slightly higher than room temperature.

If you can't be honest Scott either offer the Bowsite collective a few beers as a mollifier or take a refresher course in "Lying for dummies".

The public want fewer deer. DEEP is answering that call by providing ample hunting opportunity.

Who is this public you are referring to and how is the DEEP determining what they want? Its not a hard question.

Since you have dodged that question twice now, I can only assume that the DEEP is determining what the public wants by the old, the squeaky wheel gets the grease (translated rich gold coast suburbanites or perhaps insurers), and not by any measurable gauge of public desires.

That is my take as well believe me. I just want to understand what exactly the public opinion is and how the DEEP has arrived at this.

You can't just say the "Public wants less deer". There has to be some basis for saying that.

Have you ever been polled by the DEEP whether or not you want 15 deer per square mile across the board? Has anyone?

The legislative body in the state that is supposed to represent public opinion has refused to pass a Sunday Hunting bill. If the public wants 15 deer per square mile, why hasn't the public spoken and pushed for Sunday Hunting?

The DEEP is a non-elected bureaucratic organization. Despite this, Doc says their policies are responding to what the public wants. Fine, I am willing to accept that if I understand exactly how they determined what the public wants. It doesn't seem to me to be an unfair question.

This is not something I am making up, this is the basis for the field of wildlife management. Public ownership of wildlife is something all hunters need to understand. Here is a good summary in the attached link.

If you want to be better informed on this topic, I'd suggest you read Leopold's Game Management, the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, and the Magna Charta.

I really don't understand what is so difficult about I am asking. The article doesn't provide an answer.

I just want to know what is the basis for DEEP taking the position that the "Public wants less deer", or the "Public wants 15 deer per square mile".

As you stated politicians rely on emails, letters, phone calls, town halls, etc to understand what the public wants.

Is the DEEP getting flooded with emails and calls from the general public? Have they done any polling or open town halls on the subject across the state? How does the DEEP determine what the public wants and whether or not the DEEP policies are a means to an end for what the public wants?

You're asking the wrong person to respond to you in an honest fashion. I hope you note the distinction "honest fashion" as one does not need to lie to accomplish the same end; an uniformed or misguided public. Spin, obfuscation, strawmen and non sequiturs will do the job just fine.

The article, while a nice read, was an opinion piece and as relevant as the opposing viewpoint from a similarly qualified person or a well-informed layperson.

The bottom line is (as you opined) that the squeeky wheel is getting greased; the insurance industry would love to see their actuarial risk lowered and sees fewer deer as the means to that end. Well-financed groups are also getting more than their representative share at the decision making table.

The link I've attached is to the 2013 Deer Program Summary. Please note on page 4 that there are hyperlinks to both the Fairfield County Deer Management Alliance and BeSafeRedding.org.

For all intents and purposes both organizations are the means to an end for Dave Streit and he's made no secret about what that objective is over the past few years.

Don't bother skimming any other pages for links to "CT Plumbers" or CT Soccer Moms" or "Average CT citizens concerned about wildlife management"; they aren't in there. Their voices don't count, however many times Scott Williams tries to pretend they do and that management decisions are made by the majority of the CT public, hunters, non-hunters and all shades in between. Arid deserts could be made into lush gardens with the copious amounts of fertilizer he's been spreading.

Ironic that he cites Aldo Leopold; perhaps he should pick up a copy of A Sand County Almanac and contrast this sentiment "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise." with current mismanagement practices that do not mirror that insight.

Equally charming is citing the Magna Carta (with the obvious intent to backhand hunters wanting to call all the shots and comparing them to the English Aristocracy) when in fact it is the Fairfield County and Insurance Aristocracies that are dictating CT DEEP wildlife management policy.

Of course, hunters haven't argued for any such totalitarian control; merely to have the CT DEEP engage in their proper function and manage the deer herd with respect to all of CT's population and in the context of managing an ecosystem in a sound and prudent fashion.

Somewhere in the midwest a farmer should be giving thanks for all the strawman arguments foisted here at the expense of honest replies to legitimate questions. Of course an honest reply would be to acknowledge some of the obvious realities that have been recognized and the likelihood of seeing that type of honest discourse is as likely as not seeing another tax hike out of Hartford.

The Deer Alliance " the public ", according to Scott set up shop in surrounding towns were they tell interested individuals ( community leaders and Dave Streit wannabes) with similiar interests ( eliminating deer ) within their towns for a number of different reasons; tick born diseases, deforestation and eliminating deer car collisions.

They then set up what they like to call exploratory committees made up of their own members to guarantee a positive outcome. They then invite guest speakers, Howard Kilpatrick and Kirby Stafford to tell of the pending tick infestation and deer overpopulation. The main problem is that they operate and sell the ideas with over inflated deer populations counts provided by the CT DEEP and they then double and quadruple the number to sell their agenda. This whole operation started 10 years ago in Wilton and is the main reason the deer numbers are now around 10 dpsm throughout zone 11 in Fairfield County.

This is all done for access to the town areas set aside as open space and wildlife protection; areas that have been the safe havin for deer during heavy hunting pressure. Once the committees get access to these areas and target the senior does and family groups it is down hill for the local deer population.

This is the DEEP agenda; allowing for this wildlife mismanagement to operate; and using the Connecticut sportsmen to carry out the destruction through baiting, unlimited doe tags and extended seasons...............The deer are still their; you just won`t see them anymore !

Nothing at all....it`s a good point; and is something we have been looking at for the future of wildlife in Connecticut.

I especially like this with regards to besaferedding:

"Residents of the town of Redding developed a website ...to facilitate a process whereby willing landowners are matched up with hunters that are committed to removing deer from private land at no cost to the landowner. The mission is to get Redding residents to work together for the purposes of reducing tick-related diseases and deer-vehicle accidents that result from deer overabundance..."

So in 2013 the DEEP has determined that tick related diseases result from deer overabundance and that removing the deer will reduce tick related diseases.

But wait hold the phone, in 2014, Doc Williams said this:

“Tick abundance and associated diseases have been reduced significantly in areas of an insular nature by deer removal alone, but whether similar results can be achieved in an inland setting has yet to be determined,” he said.

LOL So how do we know in 2013 what we don't yet know in 2014. They must think we are all dumb.

Hunters do not have a unified message. They don't want deer killed, but they want to be the ones killing them. They want more opportunity like Sunday hunting, but want reduced tag allotment. They object to being called "deer management tools" but rally against WB because they "will do it for free." Once hunters find a rally cry that makes sense and do not contradict other cries, then perhaps an alliance could be formed and politicians will actually listen to said unified message. Right now, it is clear that hunters do not know what they want, or want too much. Demands seem to be, well, reactionary.

By all means please do....

I'd offer that perhaps you should stick to talking about what you know but then that might be construed as me telling you to go sit in the corner and be quiet.....

Then again, given your ignorance on the topic of sportsmen's alliances that might be prudent.

I've included a link here to another discussion board. I want you to pay close attention to what the moderator, TooManyHobbies had to say.

I've been very forthcoming with the sharing of information to your obvious discomfiture. I'd suggest you undertake an honest approach to debate but I think I'd have a greater chance of succes teaching my dog calculus.

I can't read your dissections of my posts anymore because they are simply reactionary and it's just plain boring to read my posts all over again.

Sure you can; you've just demonstrated that fact by your response; speaking of reactionary I realize this probably isn't the hoped-for response (given the painfully transparent motivation that seeps through) but underestimating the opposition seems to be a strong suit with you.

FYI, I don't find your posts boring at all; on the contrary I find your self-contradictory ramblings to be entertaining and your penchant for inserting your foot in your mouth is priceless.

Enlighten us with your brilliance

In your case Scott, Lord knows I've tried, but you've just proven the wisdom of the canard "you cannot enlighten the unconscious."

Speaking of recycled, Grimm's called and they'd like to offer you a job on their next Edition of their Classic Fairy Tales. I think they're quite taken with your magic disappearing deer and stuff.

Loved the link too, though I'm not certain why you'd think the fact that a blog that is basically a cover agent for the CT DEEP would impress me.

If you'd like to trade irrelevant non sequiturs let me know; I'll post a link to a blog where Glen called you a world-class bloviator. I'm sure you'll be equally cowed by that link. (That was sarcasm Scott, in case you struggle with that trait too.)

On the plus side, it's very revealing how your posts devolve when you're on the losing end of an argument; fortunately, I've seen this movie before and treat it appropriately.

You'd have been far better served by remaining silent but that's simply not in you. The wise man knows when to fight and when to retreat, the fool knows neither.

The natives have caught onto you Scott, and that's what's really pizzing you off, lol.....

You are correct; Odocoileus was the name Scott posed, er, "posted" under (though he's doing a fair approximation of posing at present) last year.

He and the facts were also infrequent acquaintances then too. Different name, same degree of inaccuracy.

If this is what the public wants in suburbia, then the state should pass a law that says hunters have the legal right to hunt your property in these areas in the interest of public health and safety - you know, Lyme disease control and reducing car strikes.

No need to hire WB and spend our money, we will pay for the right to reduce these pockets where 45 deer psm are stacked up.

If you are saying I am inflating numbers, let's look at the raw data without correction. On 4 square miles this year in Redding, my crew and I counted 114 deer. That equates to a raw uncorrected density of 29/sm. DEEP flew each of the 6 DMZ 11 transects 4 times which averaged a raw uncorrected density of 26 deer/square mile. You talk of inflated numbers and mismanagement and bogus correction factors, but the raw uncorrected data are 3 times what you are claiming densities are.

Seem like in 2013 DEEP bought into the idea of deer elimination without having any facts to back it up.

do you agree that counting deer in 3 or 4 specific areas can NOT be applied to the entire town since you already stated that deer are in pockets, specific areas where hunting is not allowed?

To me it's like saying I have one ounce of water in the bottom of a glass, therefore the entire glass must have the same ratio of available volume to liquid, so I have a full glass of water. The only fact I'm certain of is the one ounce in the bottom, nothing more.

Rand, P. W., C. Lubelczyk, M. S. Holman, E. H. Lacombe, and R. P. Smith, Jr. 2004. Abundance of Ixodes scapularis (Acari: Ixodidae) after the complete removal of deer from an isolated offshore island, endemic for Lyme disease. Journal of Medical Entomology 41:779–784.

Rand, P. W., C. Lubelczyk, G. R. Lavagne, S. Elias, M. S. Holman, E. H. Lacombe, and R. P. Smith, Jr. 2003. Deer density and the abundance of Ixodes scapularis (Acari: Ixodidae). Journal of Medical Entomology 40:179–184.

Stafford, K. C., III. 1993. Reduced abundance of Ixodes scapularis (Acari: Ixodidae) with exclusion of deer by electric fencing. Journal of Medical Entomology 30:986–996.

Stafford, K. C., III. 2007. Tick management handbook: an integrated guide for homeowners, pest control operators, and public health officials for the prevention of tick-associated diseases. The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 1010, South Windsor, CT, USA. http://www.ct.gov/caes/lib/caes/documents/publications/bulletins/b1010.pdf

Stafford, K. C., III, A. J. DeNicola, and H. J. Kilpatrick. 2003. Reduced abundance of Ixodes scapularis (Acari: Ixodidae) and the tick parasitoid Ixodiphagus hookeri (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) with reduction of white-tailed deer. Journal of Medical Entomology 40:642–652.

So to answer your question, Howard recently tracked Lyme disease cases and was able to determine a reduction in tick-borne disease prevalence as a direct result of deer reduction:

Kilpatrick, H. J., A. M. LaBonte, and K. C. Stafford, III. 2014. The relationship between deer density, tick abundance, and human cases of Lyme disease in a residential community. Journal of Medical Entomology 51:777-784.

However, it too was done in an area of an insular nature. What I have been saying is that we do not know if the same results will occur in an inland setting.

So, DEEP was correct in their statement that deer reduction will reduce tick-related disease and have the paper here to back that claim up. And I too am correct when I said that we do not know if those results will be the same in an inland setting. As a scientist, I seek to answer these questions. I am not sure what the conflict is here, it is just how the scientific process unfolds.

I’m not sure I am following your one ounce of water example. If you have 1 oz of water in a glass, you are correct in assuming that the entire glass has the same ratio of available volume to liquid. If you have a 10 oz glass that ratio would be 9 : 1. If you have a 2 oz glass, the ratio would be 1 : 1. To then assume the glass is full of water doesn’t make logical sense. I am not sure how that applies to deer densities.

I see you are once again reviving your inaccurate corollary between QC'ing pharmaceuticals and population sampling.

I'll try to keep it simple; if the therapeutic index of a drug is 1 to 50 micrograms/ml I need only QC the high and low end of the therapeutic index; I cannot acheive a dosage of 1 and a dosage of 50 without "hitting" every value in between (much like you will hit the numbers 2-49 when counting by one from 1 to 50.

You cannot extrapolate a wildlife population in a like manner because you cannot assume an equal spatial distribution; this fact is not lost on you, it is merely inconvenient to your argument, so thank-you for the delicious slice of irony when you attempt to misrepresent my position as a disingenous one fostered to advance my argument. That shoe is on YOUR foot, thank-you very much.

Likewise, I'm not sure why you feel the need to re-post facts not in dispute. I hope others note I do not refer to this action as your "lacking original thought" that ridiculous non-sequitur was your display of a fit of pique over the facts again not lining up with your argument. Please dispense with any further attempts to marginalize your opposition with strawman arguments, they are beneath the subject matter.

In any event, no one has disputed, and I have acknowledged the results cited for insular communities. What has been posited is the fact that those results have not been duplicated in a non-insular setting. Thank you for your late addition to that party; it did not preclude you misrepresenting to residents of Redding what the goal of the ITM study was as you cited the same results above yet neglected to attach the qualifier that those results were only obtained in insular settings.

Regarding "negativity"; please, do not insult anyone's intelligence any further with that banal tactic. As a scientist, you above all should know how the scientific process works as you attempt to build consensus for a hypothesis. Challenge is expected and should be welcomed. Your attempts to cast yourself as a victim are contemptible; the issue isn't the lack of validity of the challenge(s) it is your lack of intellectual honesty and the maturity to accept the challenge and respond with supporting facts.

You do make an effort to be fair; while you feel in command of the situation your postings have a dignified, education-tinged air. Once the other side posts facts not easily rebutted (or not capable of being rebutted) your tenor changes markedly. Snarky comments seep in and non-sequiturs and strawman become prolific. If this is indicative of your ability to handle dissent then you are in the wrong field or at minimum on the wrong forum.

I expect you'll keep Toonces waiting on his query as long as you have tap-danced around addressing his queries as to how the public was queried to support your assetion that "the public" wants deer killed. (Bob, you have to wait in line on that score, Toonces did ask first.)

Your positing yourself as "a friend to sportsman" railing against unjust attacks is equal parts disingenous and laughable. I've testified both orally and in written form at numerous public hearings on hunting; I don't recall bumping into you in Hartford on any occasion. I've only seen evidence that your concern extends to the public named Dave Streit or Anthony DeNicola (with the inclusion of the FFCDMA and BeSafeRedding.org).

When you pony up $13K out of pocket or invest your time outside of where you have vested interest you may feel free to pontificate and make your case for sainthood among sportsmen. Until such time the claim rings hollow.

Phonies don't generally play well and tend to have a short-shelf life Scott. I think that reality is seeping in as the chorus of dissent continues to grow. Expect more of the same.

The Emperor has no clothes.

The conflict as I see it is this.

The 2013 deer report is not a scientific peer reviewed scholarly paper like the ones you cite. If it was I doubt the statement in question would have been included.

The report is intended for general consumption by lay folks without your scientific expertise and background on this particular subject. At the same time it is authored by DEEP who is supposed to be the authority on these subjects which to the lay person means it must be true.

The passage I quoted was included in the report without any additional context like what you just provided.

It is not unreasonable that the average person reading that report will come to the conclusion that they can significantly reduce their risk of lyme disease if they eliminate the deer on their property. Based on what I understand that conclusion is far from being proven scientifically or otherwise.

In fact that is at least part of what you are working on with your current unfinished Tick Study.

I think the DEEP was wrong to make that statement, in the context it did, taking into account its intended audience and the possible impact the report would have on that audience.

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Lincoln

Shouldn't the focus be on elimination of this non-native species? To me it would seem steps taken towards removing this plant in suburban environments would produce better results than eliminating the size of the whitetail herd.

Again, not piling on here, just curious as to the process of the CAES Tick study

That right there is very telling to me, the overabundance of deer caused the overbrowsing of native species allowed the spread of the barberry. I also believe that the lack of logging and therefore lack of natural undergrowth in FFLD county had a lot to do with the barberry taking over.

One thing I will say with certainty...I have watched deer eat Japanese barberry, whether they like it or not I can't say, but they certainly eat it.

You also have stated several times that the deer in the areas that are hunted heavily have moved to Mr Jones' house where no hunting occurs. Did you survey the hunted areas? If you did, and you found lots of deer than your prior statement is false, the deer didn't move to Mr Jones' house. If you only surveyed the non-hunted areas then I would agree that you would find more deer, but again, you can't apply that average to area in general.

Fletch, you have been doing your research. This issue is complex and there is not a silver bullet that will solve it. The Japanese barberry infestations exist largely as an historic remnant of chronically overabundant deer herds. Barberry is one plant I can truly say is browse resistant. We have seen deer eating its fruits in the winter when little else is available, but aside from that, they leave it alone and consume nearly everything else on the forest floor, giving barberry a competitive advantage. For those hunting RWA in North Branford, I am sure you can attest to this because there is virtually nothing else on the forest floor, just like most of Fairfield County as well. Additionally, the growth form of the barberry plants shades out the sun and provides a humid microclimate beneath that keep ticks hydrated and increases survival. Ticks that do not have to retreat to the leaf layer to keep from desiccating can spend more time seeking a host which will increase chances of obtaining a blood meal and will increase survival.

It’s not whether it’s the vegetation, the mice, the deer, or the medium-sized mammals that are the answer to tick-borne illnesses, it is a combination of all of the players in the cycle. That is why the tick study in Redding seeks the best combination of treatments, of which deer reduction is just one. Again, there are four treatment combinations on the tick study: 1: Nothing (control), 2: deer reduction only, 3: mouse bait box and fungal spray, and 4: deer reduction, mouse bait box, and fungal spray. The intent is to determine the most effective combination of treatments to reduce tick abundance in a residential setting. Again, deer reduction was one of the treatments and occurred on only 2 square miles of Redding.

I firmly believe the carrying capacity of the land is way below DPSM currently.

At least a dozen references to the inability to extrapolate a population sample when an equal spatial distribution does not exist have been posted; again ample opportunities to cite sources to the contrary and again a resounding ZERO citations.

The studies referencing a correlation to a reduction in deer density to a reduction in lyme incidence have only been demonstrated in insular settings; it is disingenous, and appears to be purposefully so to posit it as universally applicable given there is no scientific evidence to support the claim. To state that what the DEEP stated is 100% true with regard to Redding is at best a half-truth.

Bluster is a poor substitute for the facts but its employment does highlight a demonstrable inability to admit to being wrong.

I'll see your Lincoln and raise you a Shakespeare that pretty accurately sums up your contributions on this topic and forum; "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Most of CT is mature hardwoods.

And the QDM I am referring to is not necessarily for high deer numbers. I would like heavier deer, bigger bucks, numerous areas with year round forage and thick cover, sightings every time in the woods, hunters being selective where possible, etc.

Scott, you keep saying hunters can't bring densities down to a certain level.....well, the state could easily work with us in order to pass small bucks, limit doe harvests and create a utopia for "your public" and us. Win win. Until the state puts the regulations in place, guys will keep killing whatever walks in front of them.

The good doctor is saying we have 40 dpsm and there's plenty of deer in the state. If the large majority of us hunt STATE land, not the back yards in SW CT, and the herd is depleted on state land, then what does it matter how many deer are in the backyards? That becomes the landowners' issue at that point. Let the DEEP manage the deer herd on the land we hunt and leave the backyards to the landowners to manage.

You see, I don't mind ticks because I know to check myself after each time in woods, so 100 dpsm is fine with me. I've hunted upland game in areas where I came out of the woods with ticks all over my clothes, but never once was I bit. So it's not the tick that's the problem, it's education.

And if you don't want deer/car collisions eliminate cars. Much greater benefit to the earth by doing that than killing off the deer.

Yea, Now that's what I'm talking about!!!! Let's go hug some trees, But not together,(that's Gay) separately in our own sections of state land.

This is some funny stuff. -Duncan

Dr. Williams, where does the Barberry fall into the equation of the study? Have attempts been made as part of the CAES study (or any other study that you're aware of) to eliminate that part of the equation? I'm curious to see what the result of that has or would be in reducing the tick population.

I know it's not the end all, but it seems to me that reduction of a non-native species that's proven to be a more than ideal habitat for ticks would be a huge part of reducing tick numbers.

I think Dr Williams has drawn us all into the trap of using the mice, deer, & ticks as the heart of the lyme disease problem that needs to be addressed. I don't agree with this course of action.

Example: currently the state is cracking down on people using their cellphones while driving. Why? It causes accidents and they're trying to educate them and change their behaviors by levying hefty fines.

Are the police reducing the number cars? Are they reducing the number of cell phone? No! Why not? No car, you can't text while driving. No phone, can't text while driving. Because the simple solution to the problem is to educate people about the dangers of texting while driving and get them to change their behaviors through the fines.

The same can be done with lyme disease. Educate the people in the high lyme disease areas about how to prevent getting bit and checking yourself after leaving the woods, unless of course you have a friend who gets paid $141k to kill deer, than that becomes the solution to the problem!

I wonder how much time and money was spent by the state to educate the general public on lyme disease as compared to the tens of thousand spent on killing deer??? Anyone want to guess?

Included is a link for more information about barberry.

how many infected ticks does it take for someone to contract lyme disease? The answer - one!! If your plan doesn't eliminate all ticks, then it's not the solution to the problem of lyme disease, is it?

Check yourself for ticks,....problem solved, no dead deer & no taxpayer money spent.

question was asked before and his answer as no, no other culls scheduled at this time.

Keep in mind that this entire WB process is NOT a one time event that will permanently lower deer herd numbers. Mr DeNicola states it's like cutting grass, you have to do it every so often to MAINTAIN herd numbers!! Sounds like a great business to be in, right?

So the real question is - Are you ready to donate $141k every few years to kill deer? It was federal funded, so of course that money doesn't come out of your pocket, it comes from,...........wait, I guess it does come out of your pocket, and mine too.

And we'll still have lyme disease and car strikes and people will complain about the expensive landscaping. Jump on the merry-go-round, it's a great ride!

When the masses are put at ease that reduced deer numbers are the key to reduction of ticks/lyme will this become common protocol to calm residents?