Mathews Inc.
CAES / Davis FLIR Video Redding - 2015
Connecticut
Contributors to this thread:
airrow 03-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 03-Jan-16
jdrdeerslayer 03-Jan-16
bigbuckbob 04-Jan-16
SixLomaz 04-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 04-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 04-Jan-16
airrow 04-Jan-16
airrow 04-Jan-16
bigbuckbob 04-Jan-16
airrow 04-Jan-16
airrow 04-Jan-16
bigbuckbob 04-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 04-Jan-16
Sgt. York 04-Jan-16
Bloodtrail 04-Jan-16
airrow 04-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 04-Jan-16
Bloodtrail 05-Jan-16
bigbuckbob 05-Jan-16
Ace 05-Jan-16
airrow 05-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 05-Jan-16
Bloodtrail 05-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 05-Jan-16
Bloodtrail 05-Jan-16
airrow 05-Jan-16
airrow 05-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 05-Jan-16
airrow 05-Jan-16
Bloodtrail 05-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 05-Jan-16
Ace 05-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 05-Jan-16
Bloodtrail 06-Jan-16
Smoothdraw 06-Jan-16
bigbuckbob 06-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 06-Jan-16
Ace 06-Jan-16
bigbuckbob 06-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 06-Jan-16
Ace 06-Jan-16
bigbuckbob 06-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 06-Jan-16
bigbuckbob 06-Jan-16
bigbuckbob 06-Jan-16
bigbuckbob 06-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 06-Jan-16
bigbuckbob 06-Jan-16
bigbuckbob 06-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 06-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 06-Jan-16
airrow 08-Jan-16
airrow 08-Jan-16
airrow 08-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 09-Jan-16
airrow 09-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 09-Jan-16
airrow 09-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 09-Jan-16
airrow 10-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 10-Jan-16
airrow 10-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 10-Jan-16
airrow 11-Jan-16
shawn_in_MA 11-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 11-Jan-16
airrow 12-Jan-16
spike78 12-Jan-16
bigbuckbob 12-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 12-Jan-16
Mike in CT 12-Jan-16
shawn_in_MA 12-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 12-Jan-16
Mike in CT 12-Jan-16
jdrdeerslayer 12-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 12-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 12-Jan-16
bigbuckbob 12-Jan-16
airrow 12-Jan-16
airrow 12-Jan-16
airrow 12-Jan-16
airrow 12-Jan-16
airrow 12-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 12-Jan-16
Mike in CT 12-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 12-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 12-Jan-16
bigbuckbob 12-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 12-Jan-16
steve 13-Jan-16
notme 13-Jan-16
bigbuckbob 13-Jan-16
Mike in CT 13-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 13-Jan-16
bigbuckbob 13-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 13-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 13-Jan-16
bigbuckbob 13-Jan-16
airrow 13-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 13-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 13-Jan-16
steve 14-Jan-16
steve 14-Jan-16
steve 14-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 14-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 14-Jan-16
Mike in CT 14-Jan-16
tobywon 14-Jan-16
bigbuckbob 14-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 14-Jan-16
Mike in CT 14-Jan-16
airrow 14-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 14-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 14-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 14-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 14-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 14-Jan-16
bigbuckbob 15-Jan-16
Will 15-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 15-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 15-Jan-16
Will 15-Jan-16
Mike in CT 15-Jan-16
spike78 15-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 15-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 15-Jan-16
Mike in CT 15-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 16-Jan-16
airrow 18-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 18-Jan-16
airrow 18-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 18-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 18-Jan-16
airrow 18-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 18-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 18-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 19-Jan-16
airrow 19-Jan-16
bigbuckbob 21-Jan-16
Dr. Williams 21-Jan-16
airrow 13-Feb-16
bigbuckbob 13-Feb-16
Dr. Williams 13-Feb-16
Dr. Williams 13-Feb-16
bigbuckbob 13-Feb-16
Dr. Williams 13-Feb-16
bigbuckbob 13-Feb-16
bigbuckbob 13-Feb-16
Mike in CT 13-Feb-16
bigbuckbob 13-Feb-16
Dr. Williams 13-Feb-16
bigbuckbob 13-Feb-16
Dr. Williams 13-Feb-16
airrow 14-Feb-16
bigbuckbob 14-Feb-16
Dr. Williams 14-Feb-16
bigbuckbob 14-Feb-16
Mike in CT 14-Feb-16
Mike in CT 14-Feb-16
Dr. Williams 14-Feb-16
bigbuckbob 14-Feb-16
Dr. Williams 14-Feb-16
Dr. Williams 14-Feb-16
airrow 16-Feb-16
bigbuckbob 16-Feb-16
bigbuckbob 16-Feb-16
Dr. Williams 17-Feb-16
airrow 17-Feb-16
Dr. Williams 17-Feb-16
airrow 17-Feb-16
airrow 17-Feb-16
Dr. Williams 17-Feb-16
airrow 18-Feb-16
bigbuckbob 18-Feb-16
From: airrow
03-Jan-16

airrow's Link
Here is the CAES / Davis Aviation IR survey film for the two expanded test sites in Redding, CT; ( Pheasant Ridge an White Birch ) from 1/15/15. Please post the number of deer you find with time stamps.

From: Dr. Williams
03-Jan-16
Why is there no link to VisionAir's aerial IR filmography? Oh, that's right, because they do not provide it to their clients. Kind of telling, no?

03-Jan-16
I just watched about 10 min. And I gotta say seams like they are too high and going to fast for reliable ID of any thing. I've used flir stuff before the problem with it is it doesn't see through trees. Couple flaws I noticed I saw a car drive by it showed ice cold,was not glowing at all that should of put off a heat signature. Other thing I noticed was a few times cloud cover made it difficult to even see the ground. Not saying it doesn't work just saying I can't belive they are getting most the deer with that type of fly over. I say this as I'm sitting on the couch watching finding bigfoot...lol! And they can't see very far via flir either.....but then again they never find bigfoot! Lmao

From: bigbuckbob
04-Jan-16
airrow

is that the actual footage of the CAES survey? I can't believe you can determine what's a deer and what's not a deer, and the speed seems like 200mph??? One other thing stands out - LARGE areas with no marks at all,....nothing!!

Dr Williams - can you explain what we're looking at?

From: SixLomaz
04-Jan-16
Top row at the bottom of the screen shows from left to right - Date, Time, unknown data, unknown date, altitude (around 2300-2400 feet)

Bottom row shows from left to right - Coordinates (N latitude - W longitude), Speed (in knots - about 85 to 101 miles per hour), Course

The barcode on the left is a possible indicator of apocalyptic association with Antichrist. Comes standard with almost all available products used by humans today. No extra initial charge.

The video may seem fast due to possible stitching and conversion from original files to YouTube format. It is not a continuous filming as if you watch time and coordinates you will notice quick changes when the video seems to skip. At times the camera hovers over areas which show deer - for example 7 to 8 animals at minute 8:35 in the YouTube video (perhaps Huntington State Park location).

No housewives were filmed during the survey, but I saw notme and Steve at their respective locations, waving and smiling. I am so tempted to get me an autonomous long distance capable quadcopter equipped with a FLIR camera for overnight scouting before hunts. Oh, wait, we now have to register them and play by restricting rules thanks to FAA. Strike that thought.

From: Dr. Williams
04-Jan-16

Dr. Williams's Link
That is the raw IR footage provided to us by Davis Aviation and obtained by Glen via Freedom of Information Act. Hours are spent in stop frame analysis determining which heat signatures are which, he doesn't count dots in YouTube and come up with an estimate like that. His full report and methodology can be found in the attached link. Why are we revisiting this again? Davis Aviation, CAES, and DEEP all separately came up with comparable densities, almost embarrassingly close to one another. The 4th survey, VisionAir, detected 25% of the animals that the other 3 entities did. That should be telling in and of itself.

From: Dr. Williams
04-Jan-16
Any clusters of deer seen on the Davis maps we ground-truthed. Particularly the ones in Huntington State Park across from Sunnyview. There was a section of that nasty invasive privet that had been mowed below the parking area and fields that had so much sign that we had wash our boots off when we got back to the office. There were that many deer in there. We were expecting to see a bait pile. No corn, but a pile of deer sign. And that's open to archery. Guessing when the archers leave, the deer move back in. But the irony is, that the survey was done in the middle of the January bow season. . .

From: airrow
04-Jan-16

airrow's embedded Photo
airrow's embedded Photo
The quality of Vision Air's equipment is plain as day in these 2 photos; the first is the zooming mode / narrow to confirm the target is a deer, the second is scanning / wide mode to find targets on the flight path. Compare these images to the Davis film and you make the call as to which is higher quality imagery.

And Scott, before you embarrass yourself any further with your " 25 % detection nonsense, " let's set the record straight. You got some bad information from Davis when he told you Vision Air misses deer because when she zooms in she's still flying and is missing deer. Wrong ! The housing has multiple cameras and continually scans on one while another is used to zoom in to confirm the targets are really deer. But then I'd expect better quality results from $250K worth of equipment over a hand-held IR camera for about 2 % of that.

This is what deer look like through a good camera at 60 knots !

From: airrow
04-Jan-16

airrow's embedded Photo
airrow's embedded Photo
Wide angle standard film

From: bigbuckbob
04-Jan-16
Dr. Williams what do you mean by ground truth. Are you saying

From: airrow
04-Jan-16

airrow's embedded Photo
airrow's embedded Photo
Vision Air Research Camera; solid mount not hand held.

From: airrow
04-Jan-16

airrow's embedded Photo
airrow's embedded Photo
Just so everyone can make up their minds about equipment, here is the hand-held IR camera Davis uses.

From: bigbuckbob
04-Jan-16
Last posting got cut short. Are you saying that you go to those areas where you saw the deer from the plane and then go on the ground the next day and count them.

From: Dr. Williams
04-Jan-16
Bob. Ground truthing. Looking at something from the air and then confirming those observations by walking to those locations and looking at them on the ground with your own two eyes. Ground truthing, something I'm guessing the Redding area hunters never did with the maps of deer locations we, DEEP, and Davis provided them over 3 years by providing point data of deer locations. All they had to do was walk over and check out the point clusters we provided at my encouragement, but I'm guessing that didn't happen because they didn't want to know that we were right. They wanted to pretend we were making it up, so they never checked and just continued to rail on this forum while the true hunters took that data; ground truthed it, and I hope they whacked a bunch using taxpayer money. They're the smart silent ones!!

From: Sgt. York
04-Jan-16
The scientific method at work. Data is generated and then data is analyzed. In this case frame by frame. Results are then reported. While we are arguing a hard finite numbers on this site. I'd like to see the standard deviation on the data. Is it say "30" plus/minus 2 or plus/ minus 10. This is commonly called coefficient of variation (cov). In my world cov greater than 30% means your data is bad. And your test was wrong or you really messed up in data acquisition. It's then time to rerun the test or rework the test plan.

Anybody got the standard deviation for the study in deer per square mile?

BTW my 8 year old daughter was picking out hot spots in the woods with the video running full speed. So a trained professional watching frame by frame should have no problem get a good count..

I'd love to get this kind of data in the NW corner to validate the areas I hunt via " ground thruthing".

From: Bloodtrail
04-Jan-16
Serious question....How do you ground truth on Private Land you don't have access to be on?

And again...a true hunter is someone who kills everything in front of them??

From: airrow
04-Jan-16
BBB - Ground truthing is what hunters did in the past; scout the areas and look for sign to get a handle on the deer numbers. That ground truth was confirmed by Vision Air Research with the equipment shown above and pictures that show what 90% detection looks like.

From: Dr. Williams
04-Jan-16
So Bloodtrail. Is that an admission that there are lots of deer on private land? Cause, there are! We ground truthed the deer Davis found on public land and those private lands we had permission on and then we drove on public roadways the neighborhoods where lots of deer were seen.

From: Bloodtrail
05-Jan-16
There ya go....spinning stuff. If you are confirming what you saw from the air on the ground, and some of that area is private property.....how can you access it to get the answers you seek in order to have a complete study?

I would think private property holds more deer, simply because there is more private property than public land as a whole in CT, hence there are more deer on that total percentage of land. A grade school kid could figure that out.

From: bigbuckbob
05-Jan-16
And just because private land holds MORE deer doesn't mean they hold a LOT of deer. 1 is more than zero.

Also, what good does it do to hunters, the general public, landowners, etc if those pieces of private land don't allow hunting?

From: Ace
05-Jan-16
So in Redding, the deer stand still while the aircraft finishes the flight, lands, someone drives over to where they were spotted and counts them?

From: airrow
05-Jan-16
" They wanted to pretend we were making it up, so they never checked and just continued to rail on this forum while the true hunters took that data; ground truthed it, and I hope they whacked a bunch using taxpayer money. They're the smart silent ones!! "

" So Bloodtrail. We ground truthed the deer Davis found on public land and those private lands we had permission on and then we drove on public roadways the neighborhoods where lots of deer were seen."

The CAES and WB shot 11 deer over the next 3 days and billed the tax payers $20,069.22 for their services. The 11 deer were taken over a 3 square mile area ( 2 ) test sites and in doing so negated a $950,000 study by over harvesting what was in the test sites areas. Vision Air had FLIR surveyed both test areas prior to the Davis survey and found only 23 deer and the CAES had been baiting the test ares prior to the Davis survey. By the CAES taking 11 of the 23 remaining deer that were left in the two test sites they were under their test site parameters by 8 deer. The test sites were to have 10 deer remaining per site and were stated to be 1 square mile each; when in fact they were just over three square miles combined, a 50% increase in size thus negated the test study again. And how do we know this, We were there and ground thruthed it.

From: Dr. Williams
05-Jan-16
We ground truthed large concentrations of deer because we couldn't believe there were that many in Huntington SP as that is a bow hunting area. And I shouldn't have to say that when we were tracking the locations of animals, we were looking for sign, not for the actual animals. The counting took place from the chopper and the density calculation was figured out using ArcView to determine area surveyed and locations of animals. Or in the manner that Larry describes with his IR technique.

Right that deer are on private land because 94% of the state is private. But on public land, densities of deer are super low from being hammered by guys.

Whatever Glen. We didn't ground truth 11 deer, White Buffalo shot them in the head. And we didn't over harvest the test sites either. We are crunching the tick data now and the deer aspect is like nothing ever happened. We needed to have a lot more deer taken to reach our goals. Amazing that 87 deer were removed from 2 square miles over three years and it didn't even make a dent in the Redding population.

From: Bloodtrail
05-Jan-16
Interesting that you say state land gets hammered. I hardly ever see anyone during bow season on multiple state land areas.

Now, you go walk any private land spot and I can almost guarantee you that someone is hunting, trespassing, poaching, riding quads/dirt bikes, mountain biking, hiking there. You'll find treestands, blinds, illegal bait piles, trail cams, evidence of humans....

From: Dr. Williams
05-Jan-16
I'm not sure what to do with this. I'm pretty confident in my statement that public lands, including town lands, receive heavier hunting pressure than private land and as a result, lower deer densities. Guys hunt accessible lands hard and take a lot of deer, which is probably like 10% of the town or state. Then they cry and claim single digit densities town or statewide when they only access and know 10% of that town or state. Are densities lower on that 10%? Absolutely. Are denstities on the remaining 90% they don't have access comparable? No! Because it receives less, if any, hunting pressure.

From: Bloodtrail
05-Jan-16
Ok. I understand.

But will you try to envision gaining access to private property (not in someone's backyard behind the swing set) and every piece you were able to scout, you found treestands, bait piles, evidence that others were hunting (or poaching) there. Or the landowner hunts there, his son, a distant uncle or cousin, etc......or the neighboring piece has treestands all over it and is hammered by guys. Heck, most of the state land I hunt has treestands all along the border on private lands.

It's very difficult to find private property that isn't walked on or been around by someone trying to kill a deer. Very difficult.

I don't feel you are being completely open and vulnerable to this. The reason you get so much static here is that you won't allow yourself to be open to what we can do to improve the quality of the hunting in CT. Imagine the possibility of using of what we know to improve on our experience in the woods....

I can see your response already, "That's right Blood, if you guys just banded together to kill every single deer out there, you'd be heroes."....however we are looking at it from another angle. Quality hunts. We can do this, without question.

From: airrow
05-Jan-16

airrow's embedded Photo
airrow's embedded Photo

From: airrow
05-Jan-16
Kyle - You're hearts in the right place but you're looking at this all wrong. Look at the facts; a guy comes on a bowhunting website and never once shows he understands what the hunting experience means to anyone; never once talks about improving the quality of hunting, never once admits there's even a tiny possibility the liberal bag limits have done damage to the herd.

What does he talk about ? He tells you, me and anyone who doesn't whistle his tune they're crybabies, they don't know anything about hunting and the hunting heritage that's part of who they are is gone, dead and buried. He tells everyone the new world order is to become paid assassins and shoot every deer, any deer that walks past them. He tells everyone " my way or the highway," anyone who doesn't want to sign up to be a wildlife terrorist can fight over table scraps.

He talks about hunting like it's nothing more than calling Terminix to exterminate cockroaches. You can't talk to someone like this because they haven't a clue about what hunting is and they never will. Just tell this guy he should be on www.wildlifeterrorist.com or www.killeverydeer.com because he has no place at this table and never will. We're not buying what he's shoveling.

From: Dr. Williams
05-Jan-16
Ok. Like i said, probably 10% of CT is actively deer hunted. A good estimate? I guess I'm not making myself clear. Guys are clustered and pressured in huntable areas, mostly public but some private. Likely 10% of the state. Where there is room to touch off a round, release an arrow, to be able to drag a deer out without causing too much fuss in a neighborhood. Right? That's where you see the sights as you describe. But look at a map of say Darien, New Cannan, Wilton. Know what i don't see much of? Huntable land as described. Know what I see a lot of? Fragmented residential areas with pools and small wood lots for privacy between McMansions that deer do just fine in and have no clue what a hunter looks like and are completely naive to any threats to their well being, aka: dumb deer. And boy there are still lots of them in such areas. Just like when Redding and Dave Streit started advocating hunting for deer management. Town lands were opened, private lands too. Land where no hunter had been in a long time and deer were plentiful and stupid and literally stood broadside trying to figure out what that camoed thing in the tree was moving around that smelled like bacon and coffee and they seemed to welcome an arrow through the vitals. Times were good. It ain't gonna be like that again and don't hold your breath for DEEP to allow things to get to that stage ever again because the rich loud soccer moms and gardeners made it clear they were not going to tolerate the damage to their SUVs or plantings, aka "The Public." So if hunters are not going to advocate for themselves and simultaneously bad mouth DEEP, this is what we are left with. Does hunting in CT "suck?" No because there are still deer in areas described that eventually spill over into a huntable area and get arrowed. So like I said, DEEP knows there are still loads of deer out there based on our surveys and mostly their surveys. Guys just need to adapt and seek out areas where the deer are instead of going to the same place they have hammered with relaxed regs, take, and baiting for the the last 2 decades. Tell me how the hell Dave Streit, a rookie hunter, whacks deer into the 20s every year. How is that possible? Because he seeks out pockets of high deer density. And the guy does it every year and drives the guys on this site nuts because his ability to do so year in and year flies counter to their argument here, that we really have single digits.

From: airrow
05-Jan-16

From: Bloodtrail
05-Jan-16
I don't think anyone is envious of Dave Streit.....maybe you?? He's an exterminator. Kinda like a a guy who holds a crop damage permit, he's there to kill everything. He's your atypical hunter....far end of the spectrum. I think if you do your scientific studies, you'd throw out his results as well as somebody at the low end.....because they are the anomalies and would skew the study.

If I hunted every day, I could kill a bunch of deer if I wanted to. You're not comparing apples to apples again. And before you say "I told you there are lots of deer around"...that's the rarity now.

But I'm "That Guy", your average bowhunter that gets out on the weekends and a few times during the week for a morning or afternoon hunt. Been bowhunting over 30 years in CT....and it's not like it used to be. It's actually worse than I've ever seen.

Can't we just figure out a way to bring quality back to all the areas of the state collectively? Why won't you open yourself up to that?

Lastly, your guess on the 10% of land being hunted I think is way off. Like I said, I think most pieces of private land in CT are being hunted legally or illegally (I'd lean more on the illegal side), or being trespassed on. Deer don't know property lines. And you can't tell me that when the harvest report shows the majority of deer reported killed being from private land, that they are only coming off 10% of it??

From: Dr. Williams
05-Jan-16
If you think most of CT's private land is being hunted you are sorely mistaken. Most of CT private landowners don't even know a hunter or what hunting is all about. And if you think poachers are sneaking in behind swing sets on 1 acre without the landowners' knowledge, you are delusional. I think, no I know, you are in the minority on this one. So in a town with 2 acre zoning, that means there are 320 landowners per 1 square mile. You are saying that hunting/poaching is occurring on all 320 properties? Or as we get closer to NY and get into 1 acre zoning, all 640 properties on a square mile experience hunting pressure? Dude, no. Just no. I'm guessing maybe 10 of those 640 properties are hunted. But I bet all 640 properties have at least one wireless network with multiple smart devices attached.

From: Ace
05-Jan-16
"Guys hunt accessible lands hard and take a lot of deer, which is probably like 10% of the town or state."

"Ok. Like i said, probably 10% of CT is actively deer hunted. A good estimate?"

" I'm guessing maybe 10 of those 640 properties are hunted. But I bet all 640 properties have at least one wireless network with multiple smart devices attached."

That's a lot of guessing, did you do your PhD research that way too?

From: Dr. Williams
05-Jan-16
Oh and I'm not necessarily envious of DS either, but if the deer herd is in such dire straits, how does that guy do what he does year after year after year?? Because he finds the deer and goes to them instead of waiting fruitlessly for them to come to him on the same property he has hunted for 25 years and pulled 3-4 deer/year off of.

From: Bloodtrail
06-Jan-16
Ok. I was being nice in my posts. So your example is one and two acre lots are not comparing apples to apples. How about all the guys that have permission on 10, 20, 100 acres plus? All these tracts of land locked up with hunters on them. And I'm sure you'd agree in your example above that deer don't stay on these little private plots of land, they move and the guys hunting neighboring plots have the opportunity to kill them when they move through.

You keep referring to FFLD county. Lots of guys on here hunt other spots in CT. I do. And if we ran a post on how many guys here have private land, I'd think most guys have private land to hunt. That could be why the majority of deer are reported killed from private land on the harvest reports. So again, I think private land is getting its fair share of someone trying to kill a deer.

Dave hunts almost every day, doesn't he? He's not your average bowhunter that gets out a day here or there. He sure is a killer. Let's let a dead dog lie.

Why won't you assist with changing the management tactics that are ancient and outdated in this day and age?

From: Smoothdraw
06-Jan-16
Dr. Williams, When did the current bag limits for bowhunting deer take effect? This was my 12th bowhunting season and the regs have not changed much since I started. It seems like the vast majority agree the deer population is decreasing. At what red flag will the DEEP intervene???? What direction are they going? I'm sure you have the inside scoop. How much influence does the anti hunting crowd have in their decision making?

From: bigbuckbob
06-Jan-16
I think Dr Williams is correct in saying most private land is not hunted, but that's because most private land in CT has no deer on it!!

Go to the towns like New Britain, Bristol, Hartford, Bridgeport, etc and tell me how many acres of private land actually hold deer. Even the FLIR Dr Williams provided shows large tracts of land with zero deer, so why even consider those in the discussion around hunt-able acres?

I think Blood is more accurate in saying the larger, hunt-able tracts of private get hunted because that's where the deer are. I'll give permission to anyone who wants to sit in my oak trees on my 3/4 acre lot, but I can tell you first hand, there are no deer there. All I have to do is look out my window and "Truth" that fact.

From: Dr. Williams
06-Jan-16

Dr. Williams's Link
Ace. Yes, I guessed my way through my Ph. D. You got me. Clearly, I don’t have a clue what I am talking about here. Why are you so obsessed with my Ph. D.? Do you wish you had one too? Does a reasonably intelligent man threaten you in some way? I can post a photo of my diploma if you really want to see it. . . In the meantime, here’s a link to my dissertation: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279173605_Effects_of_Lethal_Management_on_Behaviors_Social_Networks_and_Movements_of_Overabundant_White-Tailed_Deer

Bloodtrail. Ok. So now your assertion is that any huntable private/ public land is under a lot of pressure. I don’t disagree with you as you can see in one of my previous posts: “Guys are clustered and pressured in huntable areas, mostly public but some private. Likely 10% of the state. Where there is room to touch off a round, release an arrow, to be able to drag a deer out without causing too much fuss in a neighborhood. Right? That's where you see the sights as you describe.” That is a far cry from you saying “It's very difficult to find private property that isn't walked on or been around by someone trying to kill a deer. Very difficult.” Again, hunters only think about huntable land, which is like 10% of the state. I completely agree that that 10% gets hammered and deer densities are way down. But there is still 90% of the state that is completely unhunted where there are plenty of deer. A for instance: when we flew Redding, do you know where we saw a TON of deer, was on Highstead Arboretum (private with no legal hunting) and on the adjacent golf course, also private. There were tons of deer there and zero hunting pressure as you describe. Just because these private properties are not hunted, doesn’t mean deer are not there. Those deer count for the density calculation and there are lots of them. I have no say in management tactics of DEEP. I work for a completely different agency, I just understand DEEP’s logic and justification: the public process.

Smoothdraw. I am not sure about the current bowhunting regulations. I would have to ask at DEEP. DEEP too realizes that the population is decreasing but they also realize that there are still a lot of deer out there as I have been saying. The population is being corrected from the insane highs it was before. Again, do not expect DEEP to be relaxing take anytime soon as long as they are still counting an average uncorrected density of 26 deer/square mile.

Bob. Yeah, you are right. There are no deer on private land that comprises 94% of CT. That is the reason it remains unhunted. The deer all seek refuge on huntable acreage loaded with guys trying to kill them. Deer are wicked smaht like that. They flee the safety of 2-4-acre zoning during the season and head into the Big Woods in hopes of getting an arrow or bullet between the ribs. I wish someone had told me that deer behave in this manner sooner or else I wouldn’t have been posting all this stuff about how smart they are.

From: Ace
06-Jan-16
Oh Scott, you are so easy to rile. As for the link to your dissertation; when I got to this part I figured I'd read enough:

"This research would not have been possible without the financial support from White Buffalo, Inc. "

From: bigbuckbob
06-Jan-16
Dr Williams

for an intelligent man you're terrible at paraphrasing what I wrote. I never said there are no deer on private land. In fact I said that you are correct, most private land doesn't get hunted.

The statement you don't agree with is that there's a great deal of private land that has no deer. How do I KNOW this? I used EXACTLY the same method to verify my scientific findings as you did with your deer study. I looked at those areas that are private land and I don't see any deer, therefore,.....

From: Dr. Williams
06-Jan-16
Ah Ace. I am not riled, just annoyed with your genius contributions to these threads. That is very close-minded of you to stop reading after that part. If you continued on, you would read about how controlled hunting influences deer movements and how far they go once they figure out death is on the line. I am proud of you for getting through the page and a half abstract though. Only 188 pages of guesswork to go after that.

“. . . but that's because most private land in CT has no deer on it!!” ---- Bob

From: Ace
06-Jan-16
Answer this one Doc, as I'm sure it's not in the 188 pages of guesswork you refer to:

When you see Deer from the air, and then land, drive over and count them on the ground to "ground truth" them. Do you still multiply by 2?

From: bigbuckbob
06-Jan-16
Dr Williams

so you say that deer leave the areas where hunting occurs and previously you stated that the public land in Redding is open to hunting and has tons of deer on it as shown by your aerial survey, AND this was told to the group while bow hunting was still in season. Please explain how both statements are true.

If you doubt my statement please come to 600 Myrtle St, New Britain and we can walk throughout the city looking for deer and deer sign. Or you can come to my neighborhood and go through all of the backyards. This I was told is "Truthing" the fact if deer exist or not. You taught me well Dr Williams.

From: Dr. Williams
06-Jan-16
Right Bob. Because there is no deer sign at Mrytle St in New Britain, there are not deer on private lands throughout CT. You do realize there are 1000s upon 1000s of square miles in the state of CT beyond what BBB sees day in and day out. Right?

And Bob, I have said repeatedly that when I broke down where deer were in our 2015 Redding survey, 83% were on private land AND there were a boatload on HSP which was surprising because it's open to bowhunting. We ground truthed it because the only logical explanation we could come up with for that many deer there was that some had placed a bait pile. So we looked. No bait but lots of deer.

Ace. I don't work for DEEP. Never have I used a correction factor of 2. Ever. Thank you, come again.

From: bigbuckbob
06-Jan-16
So you're saying land that hunted Huntington Park had plenty of deer on it but you also said that one dear 100 the you leave the area and go to safety. Which is it you can't have it both ways

From: bigbuckbob
06-Jan-16
Dr William says that public land is hunted hard, therefore this is why we can't find deer on any public lands.

But wait, he also said the public land in Redding (hunted hard remembered) has plenty of deer on it. How can that be? Didn't they run away as Dr Williams stated is always the case?

I'm sure Dr Williams will tell me why I'm so confused. Could it be because he contradicted himself to suit his side of the argument? No, he's scientist, just the facts from him.

And tell EXACTLY how much of the private land in CT holds a hunt-able deer herd. You must have the data since you're saying I'm wrong. Or is it just your opinion and not science based fact? Like my facts are just my opinion and science based using Truthing.

From: bigbuckbob
06-Jan-16
Stop squeezing so hard and the head won't hurt so much :)

From: Dr. Williams
06-Jan-16
Buh. Stop Bob. Please. My head hurts.

From: bigbuckbob
06-Jan-16
I like when you stop playing because you can't answer the questions.

From: bigbuckbob
06-Jan-16
I'm doing my best Dr Williams. I know when you resort to personal comments its time to stop playing with you. I'll return to the regularly scheduled program now.

From: Dr. Williams
06-Jan-16
Bob. Deer aren't on either private land or public land, they are on both, but heavily skewed toward private. I know with you it's black or white, but it does not work like that in nature with sentient animals. They generally behave this way or that, not absolutely. I did not contradict myself. We ground truthed the deer we and Davis saw on HSP because it was an anomalous event given the pressure I imagine it receives, but it was mid-January.

From: Dr. Williams
06-Jan-16
You got me Bob. I can't handle the ridiculous questions you ask me dozens of times and don't listen to the answers I give. I know you are fired up now, but please try to keep up with the conversation. Okay?

From: airrow
08-Jan-16
The CAES stated there were 47 + 4 possible deer confirmed within the 1 square mile test site on Pheasant Ridge on the Davis IR film ( 1/15/15 ); no deer are shown in the original test area. If the CAES can provide the additional deer locations as stated and time stamps viewed on the Davis film, we will add them to the survey map above. Vision Air Research FLIR survey was able to locate and position 12 deer on Pheasant Ridge prior to the 2015 Davis IR survey.

From: airrow
08-Jan-16

airrow's embedded Photo
airrow's embedded Photo

From: airrow
08-Jan-16

airrow's embedded Photo
airrow's embedded Photo

From: Dr. Williams
09-Jan-16
". . . no deer are shown in the original test area."

Glen, come on. You expect us to believe this? Why not something believable like 8 or 19. Zero deer. You are telling us zero deer were seen by Davis Aviation in the Pheasant Ridge area where the previous year Siburn helped to visually count 45 deer/sm with Wildlife Director Rick Jacobson? Am I getting this straight? Zero deer?

From: airrow
09-Jan-16
". . . no deer are shown in the original test area. "

Scott, as you like to tell people to calm down perhaps you should take your own advice. Take a breath, re-read what I wrote and focus on the words "no deer in the original test area." This doesn't mean no deer anywhere, just no deer in the original test area.

" Glen, come on. You expect us to believe this? Why not something believable like 8 or 19. "

I'm glad you said that Scott; there are 18 deer shown on the film, they just happen to be outside of the original test area. Thank you for stating you find that number believable as you indicate in your quote " why not something believable like 8 or 19. " Your sudden burst of honesty is truly refreshing !

From: Dr. Williams
09-Jan-16
Everyone here knows you are not qualified to view raw IR footage. But to say there are no deer is plain ridiculous, transparent, and obviously self-serving. I stand by the CAES, Davis, and the joint DEEP/CAES/Siburn flight results of approx 45 deer/sm in the area in question. I have zero confidence in anything produced by VisionAir and even less in your synopsis of someone else's survey, just so we are clear here. . .

From: airrow
09-Jan-16
" Everyone here knows you are not qualified to view raw IR footage. But to say there are no deer is plain ridiculous, transparent, and obviously self-serving. "

Everyone also knows that I asked " If the CAES can provide the additional deer locations as stated and time stamps viewed on the Davis film, we will add them to the survey map above." Should I take your response to mean that you either can't find any deer and therefore can't share any time stamps ? By the way Scott, everyone also knows I didn't say there were no deer on the film, just that the deer seen were outside of the study area. I also think everyone noticed how you avoided addressing that issue.

" I stand by the CAES, Davis, and the joint DEEP/CAES/Siburn flight results of approx 45 deer/sm in the area in question. "

Alright Scott, let's look at whether that confidence is justified. If all of your survey methods are correct and there were approximately 45 deer seen in the White Birch study area by Davis Air then why was it necessary for White Buffalo to shoot up to 5/8's of a mile outside of the study area to take less than your target goal ? As you have pointed out in the past White Buffalo is not hunting and has the advantage of shooting after dark using night vision equipment. If your numbers were accurate you should have been able to meet your target reduction of 12-25 deer within the test site. The results simply don't match up at all with the accuracy claims/numbers of your surveys.

" I have zero confidence in anything produced by VisionAir and even less in your synopsis of someone else's survey, just so we are clear here. "

The results clearly indicate we should have zero confidence in any of your survey methods; just so we're clear here.

From: Dr. Williams
09-Jan-16

Dr. Williams's embedded Photo
Dr. Williams's embedded Photo

Dr. Williams's Link
Glen. This is bordering on insane. Now you are saying that within the one square mile target zone, there were no deer, and all deer seen by Davis were outside the 1 square mile delineation? Just so we are clear, you now contend that the Pheasant Ridge study area was void of deer? But what happened to your argument from January of last year that we were baiting intentionally to pull deer onto the target area to artificially increase density? So now we baited on site to pull deer off site? Really? Show me a forested, non-fenced, non-island square mile in all of CT that has zero deer and I will buy every guy on this site 10 Powerball tickets.

Davis Aviation was a subcontractor that provided us a service at cost and you FOIAed that information and I gave you everything including the raw footage. Can I view VisionAir’s raw footage of Redding and Newtown? Please? Pretty please?? With a cherry on top??? No, because I know that you, the paying customer, doesn’t even have it. Why, because she knows it sucks. And to suggest that I doctored any footage or hid anything based on your untrained eye watching videos of someone else’s work using their equipment for heat signatures you aren’t qualified to review and don’t understand is insane. For how much of that footage you viewed were your eyes open?

Glen no. Just no. “. . . there were approximately 45 deer seen in the White Birch.” No! We are talking about Pheasant Ridge, not White Birch. Never have I said there were that many at White Birch, ever.

I have attached the screenshot of Davis Aviation’s locations of deer in Pheasant Ridge, and again, the link to that report.

Clearly you are trying to drum up justification for your 5 town VisionAir survey, which ultimately, is just a waste of your money. What good is going to come of it? Anyone in DEEP or who makes management decisions on deer knows her surveys are junk. But you will be able to post about the results here. . .

From: airrow
10-Jan-16

airrow's embedded Photo
airrow's embedded Photo
"Glen no. Just no. “. . . there were approximately 45 deer seen in the White Birch.” No! We are talking about Pheasant Ridge, not White Birch. Never have I said there were that many at White Birch, ever."

Actually Scott you submitted a report to the CT DEEP per your ITM study requirements that did in fact show ( see attached file ) within the White Birch Study area 44 definite and 1 possible deer. Just so we're clear......44 + 1 is 45. I'm sure most readers will conclude as I did that you submitted a report showing 45 deer on White Birch on the one square mile test area. Again, just so we're clear the report shows the area as 640 acres, which as I'm sure you know is one square mile.

I'm sure the CT DEEP would be very interested to learn that the CAES spokesperson denies ever claiming a deer count he submitted in an official report used to justify the spending of over $950,000 of federal grant money.

From: Dr. Williams
10-Jan-16

Dr. Williams's embedded Photo
Dr. Williams's embedded Photo

Dr. Williams's Link
Now this is like arguing with my wife. So now we have abandoned the false argument that Pheasant Ridge is void of deer as you claim, and now we are talking about White Birch? Ok. . . Let's talk about White Birch. Remember when you guys were hysterical that we were baiting and drawing deer in to target areas? Well we had Davis search that target area and the periphery and then used that entire area surveyed (2.12 square miles) to account for deer being drawn into bait. So we did and I included that in my write up that was the first page of that report to DEEP that you omitted to show here, but I have. So, as you can see, Davis searched 2.12 square miles in and around White Birch and located 50 deer and 3 possibles which results in 24-25 deer/square mile in White Birch area. So yes, baiting pulled deer in as we see a disproportionate amount within the study area, which is the intent of baiting, to concentrate deer. By searching the periphery, we searched more area that had few deer which diluted the concentration on those 2.12 square miles to 24-25 deer/sm.

Glen you keep threatening me with the equivalent of “I’m going to tell the teacher on you” with junk “science” you have made up out of thin air or something I never said. Go ahead and tattle on me. You go to DEEP and say “. . . that the CAES spokesperson denies ever claiming a deer count he submitted in an official report used to justify the spending of over $950,000 of federal grant money.” Knock yourself out. This is not threatening to me in any way because I can back up all these bogus claims of yours with documentation and fact as I am right here and as I have all along. I never said what you are claiming and I did in fact submit to DEEP a report that you are quoting back to me in which I said that the White Birch density was 24-25 deer/sm. I posted that link right here for all to see.

Do you think it is in my best interest to post lies on this site to suit my "agenda"? For all to read if they so chose? For you to forward to DEEP? Do you think I am that mentally challenged?

From: airrow
10-Jan-16

airrow's embedded Photo
airrow's embedded Photo
I see a lot of spinning from you but here's what I still don't see; any time stamps of GPS coordinates for the deer claimed to be in the Pheasant Ridge test area. Once again, I have submitted exact GPS coordinates for 18 deer outside of the original test area. Will you post your GPS coordinates or keep spinning ?

With regard to the White Birch study area; the attachment is the letter you sent (and signed) to William Hyatt of the CT DEEP on Jan 16th in which you specifically mention meeting the criteria for the deer cull to proceed and specifically state that Davis Air found 44 definite and 1 possible deer " within the approximate one square mile White Birch area." White Buffalo began shooting within 24 hours of this letter as the letter stated approximately 45 deer in the White Birch test area. Of course we now know the actual surveyed area was 2.12 square miles and we also now know that less than 10 deer were taken approximately 5/8's of a mile outside of the original test area.

The fact that your final report accurately reflected that the White Birch survey was actually 2.12 miles is irrelevant; the deer cull had already been completed well before Feb 4th when you submitted the final report you posted in your link to the CT DEEP. How convenient that you knew the survey was 2.12 miles but chose not to notify the CT DEEP until after the deer had been shot. Including the actual surveyed area in the final report was covering your ass and nothing more.

From: Dr. Williams
10-Jan-16

Dr. Williams's Link
Jesus Glen. You are relentless I'll give you that. Because we had had so much hunter interference and backlash in 2014, we got smart in 2015. All the DEEP authorization said was that we needed to conduct a survey before culling began, and that is exactly what had happened. We hounded Davis for preliminary numbers to report to DEEP, which I did in that letter you just posted which satisfied the terms of the authorization, and then we commenced sharpshooting. Remember? The point of the survey requirement from DEEP was to insure that we were not already at goal of 8-10 deer/sm before sharpshooting began, not to establish absolute densities. So with the survey, and that letter, DEEP was satisfied we were not at goal and that densities were not "dangerously low." But because Larry had business elsewhere and other sites to fly, he was not able to get a final report with area calculations to us for a couple weeks. And as I recall, it took an awful long time from the point at which you posted here that Vision Air flew Redding and Newtown and for us to see the result of those surveys. If I recall it was like 2 months before she got the final report to you. So why would you expect it to be any different for our subcontractor?

I'm not spinning anything and I don't have any GPS coordinates from the Davis flight. I didn't do the flight, Davis Aviation did. You have everything that I have from that flight per your multiple Freedom of Information Act requests and Sanford's near daily calls to our CFO. If you want to see the results from my 2015 flight you can see them in the link provided here.

Glen, you are wrong. There were a ton of deer out there as confirmed on flights by me and my crew, Davis, DEEP on their flights, and CAES/DEEP/Siburn. This isn't a conspiracy. You are creating this drama. Vision Air's method sucks at detecting deer. You and Mike are the only ones still fighting this fight. CAES, DEEP, and Davis Aviation flights all confirm plenty of deer on the ground and we are all in the same ballpark. Take any of this to DEEP and Hyatt, Rick Jacobson, and Susan Whalen will nod their heads and say, "Yup, Williams is right. That is what we were looking for and that is how it happened." And anyway, 5 or 6 deer were taken from that area in 2015, of the 50+ Davis reported. So what is your deal now? I know, you don't like or trust government. That's it, the only logical explanation because everything else in your "argument" is just ludicrous. It's over man. It's been over for almost a year.

From: airrow
11-Jan-16
It boils down to credibility and no one has done more to damage theirs than you have. The facts are you have changed the boundaries of the test areas, baited outside the original test area and even had shooting occur outside of the original test area; all facts everyone here is now aware of.

None of those things should have been necessary if your numbers were accurate. You certainly shouldn't have had to mislead the CT DEEP in your Jan 16th letter as you clearly did; you established the area Davis was to fly so you knew the number you turned into Hyatt was almost double the actual number (at best). Actions like that only poison the relationship between CT sportsmen and the CT DEEP. Actions like that will ensure this fight isn't over by a long shot.

From: shawn_in_MA
11-Jan-16
Why are we still talking about something that occurred a year ago???

From: Dr. Williams
11-Jan-16
I know Shawn. Seriously. Glen, show the Bowsite audience where anything I stated in the January 16 letter to DEEP was incorrect or misleading. I honestly didn't know at the time how much additional area Larry surveyed at each location. Tony said to expand the search area. He did and that's what Larry reported. I don't know what else to say. I reported that Larry saw 44 deer and 1 possible within the WB study area and that the final report was not ready yet. That's 100% accurate information and all I knew at the time. Regardless, 24-25 deer/sm was still way more than double our target. And then 5 or 6 deer were taken from that area, and we didn't meet our objective density. So if the remaining deer density was ultimately above goal, what's your real beef? Mistrust of government? We got that. Loud and clear bro. Cause clearly it is not the resource because it is still there, on those 2 square miles in Redding, still there, lots of them, though 87 fewer due to government intervention in the interest of researching the health of the hunting and non-hunting public. I have in-laws still fighting the War of Northern Aggresion, but we are still the UNITED States of America. . .

From: airrow
12-Jan-16
CAES - " I honestly didn't know at the time how much additional area Larry surveyed at each location. Tony, ( Tony DeNicola / White Buffalo ? ) said to expand the search area. He did and that's what Larry reported. I don't know what else to say. "

CAES - " That's 100% accurate information and all I knew at the time. "

We had the film provided by the CAES reviewed. The good news for the CAES is, that another 7 deer were found on the “Pheasant Ridge and White Birch Road” film provided by the CAES through our FOIA request.

The bad news is that all of these ( 7 ) deer were located south of the Merit Parkway in Fairfield, CT. This is 10+ miles south of the original test area in Redding, CT. The Lat. Long. coordinates are as follows:

41.17976 -73.25157 1 deer / 2134:25

41.18387 -73.26313 1 deer / 2138:35

41.18016 -73.25125 2 deer / 2149:12

41.17985 -73.25118 2 deer / 2151:09

41.18238 -73.25146 1 deer / 2151:21

Deer on Davis IR film provided by the CAES:

Original CAES 1 square mile Pheasant Ridge Test area - 0 Deer

Shifted DEEP 1.5 square mile Pheasant Ridge Survey area - 8 Deer

Fairfield, CT. 10+ miles south of Redding, CT - 7 Deer

Outside of the test areas in Redding, CT - 10 Deer

The CT DEEP Volunteer Authorization # 1135006B required that there be more than 8-10 deer in the test area to proceed with any additional take of deer.

From: spike78
12-Jan-16
And I thought me and my old lady argued lol.

From: bigbuckbob
12-Jan-16
For the guys that are tired of this, just keep in mind that these are the people driving the process for deer hunting in CT. So I respect airrow and Mike for auditing the process.

From: Dr. Williams
12-Jan-16
Thanks for the expert analysis Glen. You are sticking with zero deer in Pheasant Ridge? For real? If there were zero deer in there, how did WB take 6 in January 2015 after the Davis flight? So are you saying that in February 2015 there were -6 deer/sm in Pheasant Ridge? How did my crew count 36 in March of 2015 as seen in the link above?

Bob, I am hardly "driving the process for deer hunting in CT." And Glen isn't "auditing the process." He is making up numbers.

From: Mike in CT
12-Jan-16
Wow, for a thread that I thought would be a waste of time (as I advised Glen when he floated the idea) this has certainly gotten interesting!

Looking at the back-and-forth there’s something that just doesn’t add up; if the study surveys were right, if the results were “ground-truthed” and showed “tons of deer” in the study areas then it makes absolutely no sense to have Davis surveying more than 10 miles outside of the test areas-none whatsoever.

Sending Davis that far out of the test areas would seem to indicate someone (or more than one someone) had reason to suspect there weren’t as many deer in the test areas as they’ve led people to believe.

From: shawn_in_MA
12-Jan-16
For the guys that are tired of this, just keep in mind that these are the people driving the process for deer hunting in CT. So I respect airrow and Mike for auditing the process.

Hmmm...and all this time I thought DEEP laid out the groundwork for the process of deer hunting in CT. I was not aware the CAES did this.

From: Dr. Williams
12-Jan-16
Jesus Mike. We had 4 study areas total. We took deer off 2. Davis surveyed all 4. Does that add up? Read the report. It's all there and hasn't changed. Try again.

From: Mike in CT
12-Jan-16

Mike in CT's embedded Photo
Mike in CT's embedded Photo
Jesus Mike. We had 4 study areas total. We took deer off 2. Davis surveyed all 4. Does that add up?

No Scott, and it wasn't even one of your better efforts at spinning.

Read the report. It's all there and hasn't changed.

Read the attached map Scott; all 4 study areas were in Redding, Davis was surveying in Fairfield.

The location of Fairfield hasn't changed Scott.

Try again.

So now if you're done spinning and insulting the intelligence of anyone who can read a map try to answer the question; why was Davis surveying more than 10 miles outside of the test areas in Fairfield?

12-Jan-16
Can't we all just get along..... :)

From: Dr. Williams
12-Jan-16

Dr. Williams's embedded Photo
Dr. Williams's embedded Photo

Dr. Williams's Link
Yeah Mike. We had him surveying in Fairfield. That was our strategy.

From: Dr. Williams
12-Jan-16
So what we did was put out a ton of Hot Pockets in Pheasant Ridge before Larry flew to inflate perceived deer density, but then all the residents were like "Sweet!! Free Hot Pockets! Check it out!" So they ate all the Hot Pockets and Larry didn't see any of their heat signatures from the air. So we put our heads together and were like "How are we going to fix this?" So Larry radios down that he has a friend in Fairfield that had a ton of Hot Pockets in his survival bunker. So we have Larry's buddy chuck like 120 Hot Pockets in the microwave and had him set the microwave on high for like 15 minutes. Then I grabbed my wood stove gloves and I threw them all over Fairfield and radioed up to Larry to go over to Fairfield and fly over there. So Larry goes over there and man these Hot Pockets were giving off an awesome heat signature. So he flew that area 4 times. So then he gave me the raw data and I magically erased all the remnant heat signatures in Pheasant Ridge to make it appear as though there were zero deer/square mile there. But while I was editing the raw footage, I forgot to change the GPS coordinates back to White Birch where all the deer were. My fatal flaw that you guys just caught me on was forgetting to go in and change those GPS coordinates to make it seem like Fairfield was actually White Birch. You did it guys. You caught me. And I'm all out of Hot Pockets. How could I have been so dumb not to fix those coordinates. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Please don't tell DEEP that you guys know about the Hot Pockets trick. Okay? Man, they would be SUPER pissed if they knew that secret was out.

From: bigbuckbob
12-Jan-16
Sean do you really think the deep doesn't listen to the biologist on the deer herd.

From: airrow
12-Jan-16

airrow's embedded Photo
airrow's embedded Photo

From: airrow
12-Jan-16

airrow's embedded Photo
airrow's embedded Photo

From: airrow
12-Jan-16

airrow's embedded Photo
airrow's embedded Photo

From: airrow
12-Jan-16

airrow's embedded Photo
airrow's embedded Photo

From: airrow
12-Jan-16

airrow's embedded Photo
airrow's embedded Photo
Fairfield, CT. locations shown on Davis Aviation IR Survey Film.

From: Dr. Williams
12-Jan-16
Right. That's exactly where I threw those Hot Pockets!

From: Mike in CT
12-Jan-16
So Scott, if you're done posturing and spinning the question remains on the table;

"If all your surveys were accurate and if "ground truthing" showed "tons of deer" in the study areas what was Davis doing filming deer in Fairfield?"

From: Dr. Williams
12-Jan-16
What this "super secret evidence" tells me is that Larry probably flipped on his equipment to make sure it was functioning properly before he got to the target areas en route from the airport. Ooooooo. So super sneaky. Does that mean that he included those deer seen in his analysis?? No. It does not. Do you think he, me, and White Buffalo would be so stupid as to conspire to film deer in another area, pass it off as if it were filmed in Redding, and then provide the raw footage, with GPS coordinates included mind you, to you guys? Two Ph. D.s and a former Marine were that stupid in trying to cover up their sinister plot to make it seem as though deer densities in target areas rivaled those counted by aerial snow counts multiple times previously. Yup, you caught us. Guilty as charged. Better tell Rick and Hyatt your findings. I'll do the perp walk to 79 Elm St if you want. You got us. Guess I better start looking for another job. My wife is gonna be super pissed!!

From: Dr. Williams
12-Jan-16
Bob. Howard, Andy, and Gregonis are DEEP's biologists. Not me. I work for the Ag Station doing research. DEEP typically listen to their own staff, not staff from other agencies.

From: bigbuckbob
12-Jan-16
For 2 years I've read several posts concerning the critical nature of the deer reduction study, why it was necessary to spend tax payers money to get this accomplished and how reducing the deer population to a certain number per sq mile would result in lower incidence Lyme disease; and now I'm being told that the DEEP would not consider this study to determine if the tag limits on deer in CT should be increased or decreased in the state?

Was the intent of the study to get it published in some Wildlife Biology Today journal? To add another study to the list of studies completed? Or was it to provide ground work for determining the correct deer herd population for the health of the general public? That's what I thought it was about?

From: Dr. Williams
12-Jan-16
Bob. It was a tick study with a deer removal component as part of the project. Looking at different combinations of rodent frontline bait box, fungal spray to kill ticks, and deer removal. This is not a deer study and I don't work for DEEP. I can't count how many times I have stated each of the previous statements. I find it fascinating that after all we have been through together, and all the lecturing I have received from you, all the accolades you have bestowed upon Mike and Glen, and yet you still do not know what we have been talking about this whole time. Truly fascinating.

From: steve
13-Jan-16
what is a hot pocket ? And what is that little red dot? just call me stupid .Steve

From: notme
13-Jan-16
Were the hot pockets pepperoni? Where they counting deer at lake Mohegan and G E property ?..did you see me and my buddies at the weekly heman woman haters FTW unemployed stand around the fire fire nite?..ill wave next time..

From: bigbuckbob
13-Jan-16
You work for the CAES, not the DEEP,I know that. When you make statements about the person rather than the topic you lose credibility, or at least with me you do. Glen and Mike don't need me to defend them, I just agree that someone needs to monitor what's going because I have first hand experience with the mismanagement of the deer herd in the NW corner (I know, you had nothing to do with that and neither did your studies)

Are you denying that all of the conversations on this site about Block Island deer reduction, the studies in insular settings, the FF county study never suggested that less deer MAY equate to less Lyme disease?

Are you denying that you've stated over and over that hunters need to change, to become animal control officers to kill all of the deer if the landowners wanted that to happen and that's the future on hunting in CT?

The meetings you attend with the towns people in FF county where you tell them that by reducing the deer herd they have better chance of not contracting Lyme disease, is that not impacting hunting in that area?

And I thought you said the DEEP approved all of the study requirements (killing deer) prior to WB going out and killing the deer? I took that to mean that you don't with FOR the DEEP but you certainly work with them.

You may try to say it's wasn't the purpose of your study to change deer herd numbers in CT, but please don't deny the fact that studies like yours are considered (that's the word I used, CONSIDERED) by the people in charge of deciding how many deer there should be in CT.

From: Mike in CT
13-Jan-16
What this "super secret evidence" tells me is that Larry probably flipped on his equipment to make sure it was functioning properly before he got to the target areas en route from the airport. Ooooooo. So super sneaky.

What that response tells me is that you still haven't reviewed the film; you may want to consider doing so to avoid putting your foot in your mouth again.

Allow me to illustrate your ignorance of the facts:

According to the time stamps on the tape the CAES survey film (provided per FOIA request): On the disk labeled Pheasant Ridge/White Birch, at 2020:11 (8:20pm), Davis Aviation was surveying/filming an area with coordinates that were confirmed to be in the vicinity of Pheasant Ridge in Redding, CT.

At 2134:25 - 2151:21 (9:34-9:51pm) the film showed coordinates that are confirmed to be in the vicinity of Route 58 in Fairfield, CT.

So much for Davis testing out his equipment prior to starting his survey.

Perhaps you should have stuck with the "Hot Pockets" defense; that at least had the benefit of being amusing and not so glaringly wrong as your lame explanation above so obviously was.

Now if you're done with the histrionics and nonsense the question remains on the table: "If your surveys of the test areas were accurate and "ground truthing" confirmed there were "tons of deer" why was Davis surveying/filming in Fairfield?

From: Dr. Williams
13-Jan-16

Dr. Williams's embedded Photo
Dr. Williams's embedded Photo
Steve. It's a microwaveable food item.

From: bigbuckbob
13-Jan-16
Dr Williams

any response to my last posting?

From: Dr. Williams
13-Jan-16

Dr. Williams's embedded Photo
Dr. Williams's embedded Photo
Hey Mike. No, I didn’t review the raw footage because I do not need to. I know that Larry Davis did not build up a business and reputation over 20 years by doing deer surveys in areas he wasn’t supposed to be, oh and then providing his clients the raw footage with GPS stamps. The guy uses IR to count deer, people, whatever on the ground. He doesn’t care how many there are, he just uses his techniques to get an accurate count.

Are you ready for my “spin?” Are you ready for me to show you “your ignorance of the facts?” Are you ready for me to answer your question "If your surveys of the test areas were accurate and "ground truthing" confirmed there were "tons of deer" why was Davis surveying/filming in Fairfield?”

The answer Michael, is that he was always in Redding and you guys know little about latitude and longitude coordinate systems. You see Mike, look in the read out from Larry’s raw data in the attached image. See down at the bottom where it says “4117.327N, 07326.233W?” Well those are what are called “latitude and longitude.” But see, this read out is in Degrees, Minutes, decimal minutes or DDMM.mmm. Now if you scroll up to the images Glen provided with his super sneaky sleuthing, you will see that his coordinates are in what we in the field call “decimal degrees” or in this form DD.ddddd. So what Glen did was do a Google search for coordinates that were meant to be in DDMM.mmm in this form DD.ddddd.

Ok class. Now we are going to do an exercise together. Hold on, let me put this Hot Pocket down, ooohhh hot, hot, hot. Burned the roof of my mouth. Darn. Water, water. Ok. Let us scroll up and look at Point 4 Glen provided incorrectly in decimal degrees: 41.17976, -73.25157. Now class, I want you to copy that coordinate pair as is and enter it into the Google. Ok, we there? Good. I think we can all agree that we are in Fairfield somewhere north of Melody Lane in the vicinity of 27 Stillson Place. Right? Just like Glen’s image. Ok class, now let’s Google the same numbers, but in the proper DDMM.mmm format like this:

41 17.976, -73 25.157

We agree those are the same numbers Glen provided, just in the proper format matching the output of Larry’s GPS? Right? (Google requires the space between the degrees and minutes to recognize it as a coordinate pair.) And now I think we can all see that that puts us right back off Umpawaug Road in the White Birch study area, back in Redding, CT. Conspiracy averted. Phew. Now where is that Hot Pocket???

From: Dr. Williams
13-Jan-16
Apologies Bob. Going round and round with you is growing tiresome. Being berated by you for answering questions you pose to me is super obnoxious. Perhaps I could stomach your condescending tone better if you were better clued in is all.

From: bigbuckbob
13-Jan-16
No answer is what I expected. Typical.

From: airrow
13-Jan-16
OK, we used the wrong format on the coordinates; we made a mistake. None of this changes what's happening with the deer numbers and that will be the focus going forward. The deer take by WB doesn't support your survey numbers and Redding harvest numbers don't support your overall survey numbers.

From: Dr. Williams
13-Jan-16
Ok. WB taking 6 deer in Pheasant doesn't support your claim there were zero there. Keep them coming.

From: Dr. Williams
13-Jan-16
I knew that you were behind Mike's post Glen. I am guessing Mike doesn't have as much time to dedicate to the "cause" as you do, but he should do a little more follow through and further research your "analyses". Mike is a smart guy and these softballs he/you are tossing out are all too easy to whack out of the park and are damaging to your boy's reputation. Particularly when he has utmost faith in them and talks down to me like I am the conspirator, when he is 100% wrong.

From: steve
14-Jan-16
How long will it take for the deer to rebound in Redding with out wb coming back with the amount of deer that are there now ? Its not the heyday it was but there are still deer there ,getting tired. will post some photos of the heyday if I can find them Steve

From: steve
14-Jan-16

steve's embedded Photo
steve's embedded Photo
This is meet the police station early 80s

From: steve
14-Jan-16

steve's embedded Photo
steve's embedded Photo
107 @58 Putnam park early 80 I don't know what the deer numbers were then but it was a lot let's hope for a nice winter the deer are in good shape now lots of fat and next year will be better and every body will be happy

From: Dr. Williams
14-Jan-16
Steve. White Buffalo had minimal impact on the deer herd in Redding. The average reduction to the townwide herd was less than 1 deer/square mile for each of the three years they were there. Years of pressure facilitated by the Town and like a decade of being in the top 5 statewide in terms of harvest is what did it. But Redding is not unique, it's the same story in most towns in CT and White Buffalo was not in any of those towns. How long will it take to rebound? Not sure but continued hunting pressure will certainly make it take a while, years and years and years after White Buffalo. Hunters actually did this to the herd themselves, facilitated by relaxed take by DEEP and increases access by the Town.

From: Dr. Williams
14-Jan-16
The tick study and WB involvement are a scapegoat that hunters can easily point to so they don't have to point to themselves. But while deep down they know this to be true, they will never admit that publicly and will keep blaming WB, even though the numbers simply do not support that argument.

From: Mike in CT
14-Jan-16
Scott,

Your response to Steve’s question was absolutely spot-on; something we are in complete agreement on.

Many of my posts(and Bob’s, Kyle’s and others here) have been devoted to practicing conservation and responsible stewardship of the deer herd, not carte blanche, limitless taking year after year simply because “the DEEP allows us to.” You are absolutely on point to say hunters have done this to themselves and thankfully hunters have the ability to reverse course and help the deer herd rebound.

Where we still disagree is with regard to scope of impact of the study in Redding; any time you take high numbers of deer out of areas of concentration even though on a total area-wide basis the impact can appear small the effect will be felt, and at times felt significantly.

I do find it interesting though that the tone of your response to Steve seems more in line with a hunter expressing concern over an obvious decline in deer numbers than it does with someone who seemed ever-ready to assure this forum that no such decline was in evidence.

This is also a laudable comment as it indicates to me you a)acknowledge there is a problem and b)are prepared to be part of the solution.

After all the first step in addressing a problem is admitting there is a problem.

From: tobywon
14-Jan-16
I think it’s time to stop trying to debunk the Dr’s research as you can see it’s going nowhere. As I said in a thread a while back, why are we still talking about WB and the tick study, it is over and done with? You can agree or disagree on how the deer take affected numbers in that area, but in reality it’s water under the bridge. I think that guys here are taking the use of WB in the tick study as “coming to a town near you”. I understand the taxpayer money and Block Island comparison/arguments so we don’t need to beat that dead horse.

I think that we all agree that the numbers are down from the astronomical numbers observed a while back. Yes, we all love to see deer while we are hunting, but that was just insane. I remember having 15 deer run past me back then; the train didn’t ever seem to stop. That was fun but in reality, not what the environment could support. We are our own worst enemy here as many are saying. I remember a thread several years ago that asked how long have you been hunting and how many deer have you killed. I was astonished by the numbers being reported. Hunters have been spoiled with longer seasons, Sunday hunting, tag increases, replacement tags, etc. Many have gotten fat on all of this and now they are whining that mom and dad (the DEEP) keeps putting food in front of us, yet all we have to do is show some constraint and push it away.

From: bigbuckbob
14-Jan-16
tobywon

couldn't agree with you more. Let's try to promote good stewardship of the natural resource by harvesting deer that have the least impact on the future of the herd in those areas where deer are limited (state land).

I'm not promoting TROPHY hunting. If you take bucks over does that helps the herd. If you leave the breeding doe and take the young doe, that helps the herd. And don't take more than you can eat. Taking lots of deer does not impress the true hunter.

If someone wants to wipe out the deer on private land in FF county there's nothing we can do about it if that's what the landowner wants.

From: Dr. Williams
14-Jan-16
So now Mike, we are going to glaze over your version of SSS (super sneaky sleuthing) and your general douchey tone toward me now that the class on coordinate pairs is over? I'm glad we are buddies again but am still not sure how you can suggest, again, that WB can have an impact in areas where they were not working. You know where they did have an impact? Hunter pride. Them being able to make a reduction of an average of over 25 deer/sm on 2 square miles after the 4.5 month season in 2013 unglued your argument that hunting was managing the herd and that numbers were down. They exposed the fact that increased access by the Town of Redding really was just increased recreational opportunity to take a zillion deer. They/we came in just as your take was starting to tip in Redding after half a zillion deer were taken. But there were still a half zillion remaining. . .

I'm not sure what this means as it doesn't make grammatical or scientific sense: "any time you take high numbers of deer out of areas of concentration even though on a total area-wide basis the impact can appear the effect will be felt, and at times significantly." But 48 deer were taken out of Pheasant Ridge over 3 years, despite an average annual reduction of 16 deer on that one square mile, my crew and I counted a raw density of 36 deer/sm and Larry Davis counted 32 deer/sm raw density there in the last year of the study, 2015. It doesn't seem that the loss of those 48 deer could be "felt significantly" given how many were remaining. So if the removal of 48 deer had no significant impact on that one square mile from which they were taken, how on earth could it possibly have an impact elsewhere in town where WB was not working? Spin away. . . We are waiting.

From: Mike in CT
14-Jan-16
Scott,

If we want to talk about moral equivalency let's start with manufacturing quotes for people and then refusing to own up to it; I offered the first olive branch without expectation of reciprocation from you and was content to leave it at that.

Let the matter drop and focus on the deer issue and I'll let the quote issue slide off into history as well.

Regarding the impact of deer reduction in areas of concentration; you dropped the word "small" from my statement and when I read yours, absent that word, you're right as to it not making sense. Sorry for the easy pun but sometimes "small" things can make a big difference.

If you take deer from wintering areas (and I'm not talking about strictly from a dealing with cold extremes sense) you're abolutely going to exhibit some form of impact on the overall area, it's only a question of to what degree.

What's clear is we don't see eye-to-eye on that impact but as I indicated in my earlier response your answer to Steve seemed more in line with those who have expressed concerns over deer number decline than those who have disdained such analyses.

For the moment we may just have to agree to disagree and ultimately history will bear one of us out as being closer to the mark.

Now as the conversation appears to be back onto deer (where it belongs) let's allow that to take it's course and let's welcome all input as to where we go from here.

From: airrow
14-Jan-16

airrow's embedded Photo
airrow's embedded Photo
CAES - " But 48 deer were taken out of Pheasant Ridge over 3 years, despite an average annual reduction of 16 deer on that one square mile, my crew and I counted a raw density of 36 deer/sm and Larry Davis counted 32 deer/sm raw density there in the last year of the study, 2015. "

Maybe you can take a few minutes and show and tell the class were the deer are in the one square mile on Pheasant Ridge; it should be easy for you being you say there are 32 deer there to view on the film supplied by your office and Davis Aviation. I will enclose a picture of what they look like through a good IR camera to help you find them; just post the pictures and time stamps.

From: Dr. Williams
14-Jan-16
Mike. I'm glad the olive branch was offered after it was clear your conspiracy mumbo jumbo was junk. Again with the "wintering areas." Treatment areas were chosen based on cul de sac road configuration. No one is talking about wintering areas but you. Look at "White Birch", "Pheasant Ridge",'"Blueberry Hill", and "Drummer Lane". Tell me what they all have in common. Dr. Stafford didn't want his crew to be playing in traffic risking their lives when mouse trapping and tick sampling. Spin away, spin away.

From: Dr. Williams
14-Jan-16
"So now if you're done spinning and insulting the intelligence of anyone who can read a map try to answer the question; why was Davis surveying more than 10 miles outside of the test areas in Fairfield?" --- Mike 1/12/16

From: Dr. Williams
14-Jan-16
"Now if you're done with the histrionics and nonsense the question remains on the table: "If your surveys of the test areas were accurate and "ground truthing" confirmed there were "tons of deer" why was Davis surveying/filming in Fairfield?"

---Mike 1/13/16

From: Dr. Williams
14-Jan-16
How am I doing with my quotes now? Satisfactory?

From: Dr. Williams
14-Jan-16
Glen, a pretty picture doesn't justify a crappy survey. But she provides pretty pictures to her paying clients because she knows that you paid $10,000 for a pretty picture, and you are about to do it again. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice. . .

Could you post the raw footage of her survey for us to review? If not last year's, how about this year's? I wanna compare video footage speed with a pilot that covers a square mile in 45 minutes vs one who covers a square mile in 4 minutes.

From: bigbuckbob
15-Jan-16
Yawn, ho hum.

From: Will
15-Jan-16
Actual question (seriously, not pot stirring here):

How does a pilot cover a mile in 45' Dr Williams? Helicopter? Just curious - that's 3 some what slowly walked miles so it gets me curious. Certainly it's a better way to survey anything from the sky with or without flir. I'm just curious how it's done.

From: Dr. Williams
15-Jan-16
No problem Will. We set up permanent transects and fly them in snake like fashion with lots of turns like in the attached image. These were done by chopper. Larry Davis did the same configuration from a plane. Because the heads up GPS map software leaves a trail of where you have surveyed, you can fill in gaps you missed if the pilot gets misaligned on a transect or if the wind pushes the aircraft over. Larry's camera at altitude can cover 375' wide, so he flies transects that are 325' wide to have some overlap to insure full coverage.

From: Dr. Williams
15-Jan-16

Dr. Williams's embedded Photo
Dr. Williams's embedded Photo

From: Will
15-Jan-16
That's really cool. I dont know anything about this, so when straight lines were shown, I was thinking it seemed odd, but who know's the formulas used etc to figure things out.

The snake path makes a lot of sense. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

From: Mike in CT
15-Jan-16
Scott,

Quotes are fantastic and I'm glad and relieved to see such proficiency from you. Not having to concern myself with misrepresentations or manufactured quotes going forward allows the discussion to focus on the deer; much more conducive to fruitful outcomes.

Speaking of which, interesting point you bring up (and one you omit-more on that in a bit) in your description of the rationale behind the selection of test areas.

Whether we're speaking of sharpshooting or just bowhunting in an urban setting it should go without saying that safety needs take precedence. On this point we're in complete agreement.

Now to the point behind their selection you omitted (due to the dilemna it creates-more on that in a bit).

If the goal of your study was to demonstrate that in a non-insular setting a correlation exists between a reduction in deer numbers and a reduction in lyme incidence it should also go without saying that test areas that offer the required safety component will also be selected based upon holding adequate concentrations of deer.

After all you can't demonstrate any reduction absent good quantity at your starting point, can you? Equally obvious an especially safe test area with very low numbers of deer wouldn't work for your study goal either, would it?

Now the dilemna that poses; stating the obvious reality that the test areas needed to hold good concentrations of deer only lends weight to my point that a reduction in areas of concentration, regardless of those areas % of the town's total area will in fact translate into a quantifiable impact to the town. It is an unavoidable math-based fact.

No spin required, facts do quite well.

From: spike78
15-Jan-16
I only have one concern with the privately funded flir. I see good pictures of deer but I have only seen deer out in the open fields and lawns. Are their any examples shown in the woods and thick cover? Also, I read she flew from 3pm to 8pm, doesn't that take hours away from the prime time? If it gets dark at 5 pm wouldn't that be pre-mature?

From: Dr. Williams
15-Jan-16
Mike. I’m glad you got to the point ‘cause the suspense was killing me man! I will give you that I may misquote you from time to time, but never do I intentionally misrepresent your point cause what is the fun in that? Yes I missed “small” in my quote. Because most of the literary masterpieces I create during the day are on my own time on my personal phone on which copying and pasting is a pain in the butt. If posting here were as important as putting together say, citations in a peer-reviewed journal article, I would take more time on it. But alas, it is not as important as that. Sorry to disappoint. Usually I am rather fastidious about that. Perhaps I should add a tag “Sent From My IPhone” on my future posts???? I just love posting verbatim quotes back to you in which you talk down to me like I am child or a conspirator, when it is you that is 100% in the wrong. It’s like a breath of fresh air. . .

OK. Where are we now? Let’s see. Now we are talking about establishment of the study areas that took place 4 years ago back in 2012. We are beyond wintering areas, and have confirmed that the 4 study areas have a cul de sac nature in common. Ok. Gotcha. On to safety. Yes, we both agree that in managing deer or recreationally hunting we don’t want to kill any people. Yes. Agreed.

The goal of the study: “. . . was to demonstrate that in a non-insular setting a correlation exists between a reduction in deer numbers and a reduction in lyme [sic] incidence. . .” Gonna stop you there. The goal of the study, for both CDC and Dr. Stafford, the Principle Investigator on the project, was to find the best treatment combination to reduce ticks and tick-borne disease risk in a residential setting. An offshoot of that main goal for me, a certified wildlife biologist, yes, was to determine if we could reduce deer low enough to reduce ticks in a non-insular residential area and publish the results. I think I have made that point many times over the years.

And now I am kind of lost in your reasoning. Safety yes of course, but sites were selected based on road configuration and we found safe shooting areas within there. “Adequate concentrations of deer” you say? Research shows that hunting can only get deer to 40/square mile in residential areas so we knew there were plenty of them around as shown when WB removed 51 in year one on 2 square miles after the hunting season. We didn’t seek “adequate concentrations of deer”; we know they are there as long as we are in a wooded residential setting. Glad we cleared that up. . .

“After all you can't demonstrate any reduction absent good quantity at your starting point, can you?” Is this English? Not sure what you mean.

“Equally obvious an especially safe test area with very low numbers of deer wouldn't work for your study goal either, would it?” Pretty much nowhere in forested portions of CT are deer at densities we were seeking for this study, especially within Fairfield County. We did not care what initial densities were, we knew them to be well over goal, we just wanted to achieve around 10/sm. Hell if the WB guys had had any say would probably have looked for areas of low density so they wouldn’t have to deal with as many carcasses.

“Now the dilemna [sic] that poses; stating the obvious reality that the test areas needed to hold good concentrations of deer only lends weight to my point that a reduction in areas of concentration, regardless of those areas % of the town's total area will in fact translate into a quantifiable impact to the town.” Huh? What does this even mean?? Dude, this is a really lame attempt to try to say that reducing deer on 2 square miles had some town-wide effect. Eat dinner, take a deep breath, and please come back with something other than nonsensical drivel.

The best advice I received ahead of my Ph. D. dissertation defense was don’t BS if you don’t know the answer, it just makes you look silly.

From: Dr. Williams
15-Jan-16
Spike. You nailed it. If you are covering 1 square mile in 4 minutes like she did in Newtown, the only deer that will be detected are deer out in the open. Deer are not like pastured livestock standing around in a field waiting to be detected, they have a survival instinct and rarely are seen out in the open. Any hunter knows that. This is why we take 45-60 minutes to search a wooded square mile from the air and she does it in 240 seconds. Who do you think is going to detect more deer? Any true hunter knows the answer to that, but those who are too deep down the rabbit hole just won't admit it. . . But I will admit that is an awesome thermal image of deer standing out in a field!

From: Mike in CT
15-Jan-16
Scott,

Thank you from the bottom of my heart for proving I made clear and concise points regarding the need for deer concentrations present in the study areas.

Equal thanks for validating my point about that omission owing more to your reluctance to admit that a reduction in areas with concentrations of deer would have to be felt in the town as it is the % of the herd that is of primary importance and the % of land can be relatively meaningless.

C'mon Scott; really; what both of us know is whenever you feign incomprehension my points have hit the bullseye. Whenever you patronize you recognize those posts highlighting your shortcomings.

Eat dinner? No thanks, I find I'm often far too full after completely eating your lunch.

Do try harder next time will you?

From: Dr. Williams
16-Jan-16
Right Mike. Your nonsense ate my lunch. This is bordering on moronic. What does this even mean "Equal thanks for validating my point about that omission owing more to your reluctance to admit that a reduction in areas with concentrations of deer would have to be felt in the town as it is the % of the herd that is of primary importance and the % of land can be relatively meaningless."

This is just nonsense. 48 deer were taken from Pheasant Ridge over 3 years. There were 30+ deer remaining in that square mile validated by 2 different aerial survey techniques in 2015. If there were that many remaining where the reductions actually took place, how could that have had more of an impact elsewhere in town? Logic man. I'm seeking logic not BS. What you are offering is BS. You couldn't hit a bull's eye at 2 yards.

From: airrow
18-Jan-16
CAES - " This is why we take 45-60 minutes to search a wooded square mile from the air and she does it in 240 seconds. Who do you think is going to detect more deer? "

That`s an easy question; just compare the two cameras and the picture quality/results they provide. Military jets flying up to Mach 3 while filming, capture images with amazing clarity. Davis fly's 325` transects and Vision Air fly's 800` transects which are 2.5X and uses a much higher grade of camera.

Maybe the CAES can explain to us why if they surveyed 6.58 square miles it took less than 3 hours or approximately 27 minutes per square mile ? Did they only survey 1/2 of what they said they did ? The survey report states, the Davis IR survey started at 2020 ( 1/15/2015 ) and ended an 315 ( 1/16/15 ), just under 7 hours; but the Davis IR survey took less than 3 hours to complete 2020:11-2314:50 according to the ( 4 ) films and time stamps.

The CAES has been asked several times to provide the GPS film coordinates and film time stamps for the deer filmed by Davis Aviation ( 1/15/15 ); in both the Pheasant Ridge and White Birch one square mile test areas; to date we have not received any response. This should be very easy because they have already plotted /mapped the deer locations on their initial 1/16/15 report made to the CT DEEP. We have now requested the information through the FOIA.

From: Dr. Williams
18-Jan-16
Glen, when I say "we take 45-60 minutes to search a wooded square mile from the air ", I mean CAES. My surveys (and DEEP's) visual surveys take on average, 45-60 minutes. I work for CAES, I do not work for Davis Aviation. I think you know that.

But thank you for this clarification. So for every one transect Vision Air flies (800' wide), it takes Davis Aviation (325' wide) 2.5 transects to cover the same width. Correct? So Davis flies one square mile in a half hour and Vision Air flies it in 4 minutes? Correct? So you are saying that Vision Air has better detection because they fly wider transects? Ummmm, seems by your own admission and calculations that Davis is actually looking for deer when Vision Air blows over the top of them.

I still do not know what you seek via FOIA, but I will deal with it in the office tomorrow.

From: airrow
18-Jan-16

airrow's embedded Photo
airrow's embedded Photo
CAES - " So you are saying that Vision Air has better detection because they fly wider transects? Ummmm, seems by your own admission and calculations that Davis is actually looking for deer when Vision Air blows over the top of them."

Those words are not mine............ Vision Air has better detection due to better camera`s,( two cameras, one wide one narrow view ); not only does she find the target but she is able to zoom in with narrow view to verify / identify the target.

The FOIA request is asking for the GPS / coordinates and time stamps for each target or deer located in the Pheasant Ridge and White birch test sites. I have included a frame from the Davis IR flight ( 1/15/15 ) that you posted on bowsite last year. For every deer or group of deer you mapped / plotted on your report to the CT DEEP simply provide us with the GPS & Time Stamps, which in this frame are - Time 2033:05 / Location - 4120.170N, 07321.466W and shows 8 targets.

From: Dr. Williams
18-Jan-16
Glen. Jeez man. I did not map or create the Davis Aviation report. Davis Aviation did. Did you map or create the Vision Air report? Or did Vision Air do it? I'd ask for the GPS coordinates of deer seen by Vision Air, but there are no raw data or maps provided by Vision Air to their clients. Convenient.

From: Dr. Williams
18-Jan-16
What this is telling me, and anyone else who is doubtfully still reading this thread, is that you are admitting you are not qualified or have the proper equipment to review raw FLIR data, and you want me to do the work for you. This tells me that even you believe there are probably more than the zero deer you report are not in Pheasant Ridge.

From: airrow
18-Jan-16
CAES - " I'd ask for the GPS coordinates of deer seen by Vision Air, but there are no raw data or maps provided by Vision Air to their clients. Convenient. "

Actually we have all the (10) shape files, GPS coordinates and maps from the Vision Air Research`s FLIR surveys for both Redding and Newtown; the data gives us the exact position of every target or deer they filmed...........Please be sure to comply with the FOIA request.

From: Dr. Williams
18-Jan-16
I'll comply Glen. I will give you everything I have. As I have said numerous times before, I didn't analyze the Davis Aviation data, Davis Aviation did.

From: Dr. Williams
18-Jan-16
Oh, and while I was happy to comply in private, I'd be glad to post my response to your FOIA request here as well, for everyone to see, as it should be, and as the law dictates. And actually, I am rather looking forward to doing so. I'll get back to you, actually everyone, tomorrow. . . You think that you have the upper hand, but you are mistaken, because like a proper public servant, I have absolutely nothing to hide. And have been broadcasting so on this site for a couple years now. Spin away. . .

From: Dr. Williams
19-Jan-16
Glen. I just asked our Chief of Services if he received your FOIA request. He said no. So I am assuming that was an informal request posted here? If you are seriously making another FOIA request, you need to do it formally by simply emailing him what information you seek. His email address is michael.last@ct.gov. I'll be working on it anyway.

From: airrow
19-Jan-16
The ( 2 ) FOIA requests were made yesterday and again this morning through DEEP.FOIA, I forwarded a copy of same to Michael Last this morning. Thank you for your cooperation.

The Davis IR survey films have been sent out to several different companies for review. Initial results from the White Birch test area were 11-12 targets; the initial results from Pheasant Ridge are under 10 targets in the one square mile test area. We will post all of the results as soon as we receive the reports.

From: bigbuckbob
21-Jan-16
I hate to ask, but just wondering if the GPS coordinates of the deer locations were given as promised?

I'd love to see an unbiased 3rd party review the WB data to see what they say about all this.

From: Dr. Williams
21-Jan-16
Glen sent the FOIA request to DEEP. I have not heard anything from them.

From: airrow
13-Feb-16

airrow's embedded Photo
airrow's embedded Photo
The following data is directly from the Davis Aviation IR Survey Film Results as posted by the CAES in Redding, CT. - 1/16/15. This data was submitted to the CT DEEP to substantiate the need to continue to remove deer from the test area for year 3 of the ITM Study.

White Birch Test Area - 50 Confirmed (deer) + 3 Possible in an expanded 2.12 Square Mile Area, This indicates a Minimum Density of 23.58 - 25 (deer) per square mile. _________________________________________________________________________________________________

The following data is the result of several Private Company reviews of the Davis Aviation IR Survey Film - Results - 2/9/16

White Birch Test Area - 11 Confirmed (heat signatures) + 2 Possible in the expanded 2.12 Square Mile Area, Minimum Density = 5.18 - 6.13 (heat signatures) per square mile.

Time Stamp Coordinates (heat signatures) for IR Survey - White Birch Disk #1, Film # 2 ( 2111:03 - 2153:35 )

1 - 2111:31 - ( 1 ) Target

2 - 2129:20 - ( 1 ) Target

3 - 2134:07 - ( 1 ) Target

4 - 2134:24 - ( 1 ) Target

5 - 2138:35 - ( 1 ) Target - Outside one square mile test area

6 - 2142:04 - ( 1 ) Target

7 - 2144:47 - ( 1 ) Target - Outside one square mile test area

8 - 2144:58 - ( 1 ) Target - Outside one square mile test area, duplicate of # 5 earlier on film

9 - 2149:11 - ( 3 ) Target

10 - 2151:08 - ( 3 ) Target - Duplicate of # 9 earlier on film

11 - 2151:21 - ( 1 ) Target

The White Birch count of Davis Aviation is 388% higher than the consensus count of multiple independent reviewers. These reviews showed only 9 confirmed heat signatures within the original one square mile test area.

From: bigbuckbob
13-Feb-16
airrow

your independent private companies failed to consider the scientific math where you multiply the deer based upon the amount of money your good friend would paid for each deer counted. The scientific term is the "DeNicola Effect".

It works like this: You start with the answer, and then you do the FLIR to document the heat signatures for each deer actually found in the area, then divide the heat signatures into the number of deer required to shoot and obtain more money, then multiply that result by the deer actually counted.

I'm really disappointed you didn't know this, but we're just simple redneck hunters with boots on the ground and no Phd (well, some of us have a Phd) to wave around to ward off logical explanations. :)

Seriously - the answer will be - the CAES vendor already excluded all other FLIR firms as incompetent, so no one else in the entire world is qualified to count deer on the film other than Davis. Why? Because Davis said so.

From: Dr. Williams
13-Feb-16
What are we trying to do here? An "independent" person reviewed the tapes and has a different interpretation. Ok. Now what? This was over a year ago, remember? Though our snow count in March was less than Davis, it still showed that we were still above target densities in this area. Do you have a problem with that? You should be happy, right? All the intervention caused us to fail. So . . . .

From: Dr. Williams
13-Feb-16
Bobbo. I have grown tired of the round and round, but seeing as I am engaging you here, please explain how more deer = more money when a signed contract for a set amount of money was in place. Glen has that contract. Also, when looking for deer in an expanded area, it does not increase the count because you are calculating a density, or number of deer per unit area. If I count 10 deer on a 100 acres, that's 1 deer/10 acres. If I count 1000 deer on 10,000 acres, that too is 1 deer/10 acres. Come on man. If you are going to write these screeds, they at least could be factually correct. You know like math and signed contracts.

From: bigbuckbob
13-Feb-16
Tony could only conduct the shoot if a certain number of deer were present in the "CONTROLLED SURVEY AREA" = more money. Not enough deer inside the survey area = less money. No math needed, just common sense.

Phd math not required for the 2nd question either, just good morals and ethics need be applied. How do you justify substantiating the deer density INSIDE the survey area by substantiating the deer density OUTSIDE the survey area? Answer - When it allows your friend Tony to conduct the shoot to get more money and keep a worthless study going, until someone video tapes what's really going on, then you stop. Hmmmm, why stop? Oh yeah, safety. I guess someone who was video taping could have gotten shot by the professional sharpshooter who are trained to know the difference between a deer and man holding a camera. Sounds right.

From: Dr. Williams
13-Feb-16

Dr. Williams's embedded Photo
Dr. Williams's embedded Photo
Bob. Good theory, except Davis reported 44 deer inside White Birch area and 47 inside Pheasant Ridge. But don't let that stop you. Keep rolling Bob. Keep rolling.

From: bigbuckbob
13-Feb-16
So you first admit he looked in the expanded and now you're saying it didn't matter. Why did he survey the expanded area if it didn't matter? Why lecture me on deer density if it didn't matter? Just for fun, right? You're going in circles Scotto. :0

I was really hoping you would admit that your good friend Tony would have gotten paid whether he went out another time or not, or whether he killed any deer or none. You almost let it slip, but you didn't take the bait, gotta give you that. Must be nice to have friends working for the state to hand over money, no questions asked,....well, except for this site and the FOI requests by Glen and Mike.

From: bigbuckbob
13-Feb-16
Simple answer, Davis said they were the only company that could do the work.

From: Mike in CT
13-Feb-16

Mike in CT's embedded Photo
Mike in CT's embedded Photo

Mike in CT's Link
Funny you should mention FOIA requests Bob! The letter shown here is the one from Davis Aviation listing all the Wildlife IR survey companies that could have done the Redding survey-almost.

You remember this one right Bob? The one where the cmpany from NC and FL was dropped from consideration as they refer some deer survey work to Davis (though it's mentioned they do some themselves) and Vision Air was just plain dumped on.

Glen got this letter as part of a FOIA package; here are links to a couple of companies not discussed in the letter:

http://aerialthermalimaging.com/

Aerial Thermal Imaging has been in business for years and is based out of Salt Lake City, UT. Kind of far away so maybe that's why they weren't mentioned.

OK, onto the next company:

http://www.resourcemappinggis.com/app_aerial.html

Resource Mapping has been in business for 30 years and is based in MA; I think that's fairly close to CT but I'm sure there's a perfectly valid reason they weren't mentioned.

The most curious omission is the company in the link at the top of my post. Above All - Ohio is based in Ohio (like Davis) and started in 1993 (right about the same time as Davis if I recall correctly).

I don't know about you Bob, but I'd love to hear why their name wasn't mentioned, especially considering a no-bid, sole-source contract was awarded for the Redding IR survey.

From: bigbuckbob
13-Feb-16
Amazing how I can predict your questions :)

From: Dr. Williams
13-Feb-16
buh. This is never ending. Like I said, I would have done the survey myself, but there wasn't any snow at the time, and you would have disputed that flight too. Rant away. Rant away. This is only 400 days in the past now, but please keep going. What do you hope to accomplish with this? We didn't achieve our deer reduction goal in the study. So why are we still ranting and raving?

From: bigbuckbob
13-Feb-16
No friends to pay off at Vision Air is my guess. 400 days? Is that all? Time flies when you're having fun. :)

From: Dr. Williams
13-Feb-16
Should we have hired Vision Air out of Idaho to use their lousy forward-looking speed racer techniques in a state that is 60% forested to return us junk data? Now THAT sounds like a waste of taxpayer money for certain. But because their results are in line with your conclusion, I'm sure you would be peachy with that. If you don't look for deer, you are not going to find them. Willful ignorance is bliss.

From: airrow
14-Feb-16

airrow's embedded Photo
airrow's embedded Photo
The following data is directly from the Davis Aviation IR Survey Film Results as posted by the CAES in Redding, CT. - 1/16/15. This data was submitted to the CT DEEP to substantiate the need to continue to remove deer from the test area for year 3 of the ITM Study.

Pheasant Ridge Test Area - 47 Confirmed (deer) + 4 Possible in one square mile, This indicates a Minimum Density of 47 - 51 (deer) per square mile.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

The following data is the result of several Private Company reviews of the Davis Aviation IR Survey Film - Results - 2/9/16

Pheasant Ridge Test Area - 9 Confirmed (heat signatures) + 1 Possible in the one square mile test area. Minimum Density = 9 - 10 (heat signatures) per square mile.

Time Stamp Coordinates for IR Survey - PR (Test Area) Disk #1, Film #1 ( 2020:11 - 2111:03 )

1 - 2023:37 - ( 1 ) Target

2 - 2023:55 - ( 1 ) Target

7 - 2038:13 - ( 1 ) Target

8 - 2039:48 - ( 1 ) Target

12 - 2048:32 - ( 1 ) Target

15 - 2057:42 - ( 3 ) Target

16 - 2059:09 - ( 1 ) Target

The Pheasant Ridge count of Davis Aviation is 422% higher than the consensus count of multiple independent reviewers. These reviews showed only 9 confirmed heat signatures within the original one square mile test area.

From: bigbuckbob
14-Feb-16
Maybe it's because the caes changed the survey area that there's confusion?

From: Dr. Williams
14-Feb-16

Dr. Williams's embedded Photo
Dr. Williams's embedded Photo
Anyone can put points on a map and submit it to DEEP. Now here is the actual map. I like how you shifted the target area to the west to exclude all those deer in HSP. Look at the northeast corner of your target area location compared to the actual in reference to Lake Hopewell/Huntington Pond. Give us a break. I'm going to guess that DEEP will figure that out pretty quick.

From: bigbuckbob
14-Feb-16
Ouch! Double ouch! Our caes rep doesn't remember which map his study area covers, probably because he's the one who changed the survey to include those darn deer that keep ignoring the lines on the map he drew. Gotta get his friend enough deer so he can hand over all that taxpayer money.

From: Mike in CT
14-Feb-16

Mike in CT's embedded Photo
Mike in CT's embedded Photo
This post is just to show the cover page (page 1) of the CAES Proposal; note the date of submission.

Part 2 to follow in next post.

From: Mike in CT
14-Feb-16

Mike in CT's embedded Photo
Mike in CT's embedded Photo
Anyone can put points on a map and submit it to DEEP.

Without a doubt; how good is that submission though if the map itself is inaccurate?

Now here is the actual map. I like how you shifted the target area to the west to exclude all those deer in HSP. Look at the northeast corner of your target area location compared to the actual in reference to Lake Hopewell/Huntington Pond.

No, the actual map is the attached picture above which can be found on page 29 of your revised proposal submitted to the CT DEEP on Jan 10, 2013. That actual map is identical to Glen's. The map that was shifted was shifted to the east and it's the one you attached from the Davis survey.

Give us a break. I'm going to guess that DEEP will figure that out pretty quick.

Yes, by all means please give us a break and dispense with the pretense that it is Glen who's manipulating the maps. I don't need to "guess"; I'm quite sure that the DEEP and anyone else reading this can conclude that the map Glen posted is exactly the same as the map you submitted to the CT DEEP in your revised proposal.

Pictures don't lie Scott; you might want to pay attention to your own work next time.

From: Dr. Williams
14-Feb-16

Dr. Williams's embedded Photo
Dr. Williams's embedded Photo
Ha. Touché. You guys clearly have lots of time on your hands. If you think that shift was intentional, you are mistaken. Anyway, do you think deer can see that line on the ground and know not to cross it? Larry asked me for a Google Earth file with which to fly from so I plotted corners in that form and sent it to him. So clearly, there was a slight shift. To be fair, I took Larry’s image and created a duplicate target area and shifted it west to the approximate location (attached here in red). I count 33 deer within that area, still way above goal and still sharpshooting would have commenced. I am pretty sure that DEEP will say the same thing. Again, I am not sure what this accomplishes. There are plenty of deer out there and nothing would have changed with this new “information.”

From: bigbuckbob
14-Feb-16
Some people just can't say they were wrong, they have to put the ball under the shell and move it around. Sounds like the scientific study had some tight controls :o

From: Dr. Williams
14-Feb-16
I am curious to see where we are headed with the cover letter. . . .

From: Dr. Williams
14-Feb-16
Still waiting for the punch line on the date of that letter. Even more curious why the continued witch hunt? What's the ultimate recourse? To have DEEP revoke the Volunteer Authorization that expired March 31, 2015? Expired almost 1 year ago?

From: airrow
16-Feb-16

airrow's embedded Photo
airrow's embedded Photo
Under scrutiny the CAES continues to manipulate the CDC-ITM test areas in Redding, CT. despite the study having concluded over a year ago. The 2015 Davis Aviation Films have been professionally reviewed by outside firms showing far fewer deer than reported by the CAES to DEEP in 2015. The reviews showed Pheasant Ridge and White Birch to have 9 heat signatures within each of the one square mile test sites, far below the reported 47+ and 44+ respectively. White Buffalo removed 2 from White Birch leaving 7 and 6 from Pheasant Ridge leaving 3. White Buffalo also removed 3 deer from approximately 5/8th of a mile outside the test areas; Why ? The CAES data appears to have been exaggerated to allow White Buffalo to continue removing deer to levels below the studies stated goal of 8-10 per test area.

The reviews of the Davis IR survey films appear to show the deer counts (heat signatures) where manipulated by + 400% on average for both test sites in year three of the CDC ITM study. As a result of the suspected misrepresentation by Davis and the CAES, the CDC was billed an additional $29,306.06 for White Buffalo’s services.

From: bigbuckbob
16-Feb-16
airrow,

it's the shell game, remember? Watch the moving survey lines, which lines outline the area, watch me as I move the square around the map, around and around it goes, where it stops nobody knows, not even the deer or the CAES, but who cares, it's over now, the money's been spent, friend got his money, and the hunters are too dumb to figure out where the survey area is, was, should be. Double talk, triple talk, half truths, omissions, both sides of your mouth, talking out of your a _ _, all of the above.

I'd like to thank everyone for making this post deer season period entertaining, it's been fun.

From: bigbuckbob
16-Feb-16
Oh I almost forgot. The punch line to this joke is,.......wait for it,......Dr Williams.

From: Dr. Williams
17-Feb-16
Still waiting for the punch line on the date of that letter. Even more curious why the continued witch hunt? What's the ultimate recourse? To have DEEP revoke the Volunteer Authorization that expired March 31, 2015? Expired almost 1 year ago?

From: airrow
17-Feb-16
Here are several of the reviewers comments that viewed the Davis Aviation IR survey film from the CDC ITM study (year three) in Redding, CT.

Hi Glen,

I just went through and confirmed the targets you had identified for the White Birch and Pheasant areas. I saw the targets you referred to, but from the imagery presented, I was unable to identify any of the targets as either being or not being deer. This imagery is able to show hot spots which could include deer, but there is insufficient resolution to confirm. Also, it was taken at a high airspeed, further limiting the potential for a positive ID. I am sorry, but we will not be able to generate an estimate of deer density from this imagery.

_______________________________________________

Hi Glen:

I've had a chance to review the two thermal videos you sent and these are my impressions:

The image quality is very course due to the dated technology used for these flights and as a result, in my opinion...it is not possible to obtain an accurate deer count from this data. The thermal emission sources seen in these videos are excessively blocky and as a result it is not possible to accurately identify the targets which emit the heat. Whomever identified and counted deer from this data was either a clairvoyant or a fraud.

Over my career I have both done and peer-reviewed hundreds of ungulate surveys using thermal imaging. From a technology and research design perspective, this is one of the worst I've ever encountered.

______________________________________________

The Davis Aviation IR film could reasonably be seen as an nothing other than an attempt to secure federal funds by deception; certainly it appears that the deer numbers were greatly exaggerated over the actual filmed and on-the-ground reality at an expense to the taxpayers of $29,306.06.

Having received these professional reviews (and with more to come) it is now crystal clear to me why Scott Williams continues to post one misrepresentation after another; this is man who knows he has been caught in a lie and that the game is over, plain and simple. Like any pathological liar the saddest part is he probably believes a good portion of what he says; and equally sad is that he is incapable of admitting that he's lied, even when it's so painfully obvious to everyone reading these threads.

From: Dr. Williams
17-Feb-16
Lying. Yup. That's been my strategy. Let's see. In Redding in the last 3 years, there have been 3 aerial snow surveys using my crew, 1 using my crew DEEP staff and Siburn, a DEEP Zone 11 survey, and a Vision Air survey. 5 of those surveys are reporting deer densities in the vicinity of 30-40 deer/square mile. And 1 reports single digits. So I must be lying. You guys couldn't find anything we did wrong with the CDC study so you've resorted to calling me a liar. That's priceless.

From: airrow
17-Feb-16
Dr. Williams- "Even more curious why the continued witch hunt? ".........Williams, Stafford and DeNicola make Ex Governor Rowland look like an armateur and his "Hot Tub" debacle seem like a day at the beach !

Dr. Williams - " What's the ultimate recourse? "...............My guess would be 1-5.

From: airrow
17-Feb-16

From: Dr. Williams
17-Feb-16
Jail time??!! Seriously? For winning a competitive federal grant to improve public health and spending the money the way we told them we were going to spend the money in that grant application? With all the paperwork and MOUs to back it up? Dude. You're serious? Thanks Glen. That's the best laugh I've had in a long time! Priceless.

From: airrow
18-Feb-16

airrow's embedded Photo
airrow's embedded Photo

From: bigbuckbob
18-Feb-16
Lots of laughing going on at the CAES offices!! They laugh about lying about GMF having too many deer and were conducting a "special" hunt to reduce the herd. And now they're laughing that some of things they did may not have been above board.

We must keep in mind that this is normal operating procedure at the state level. airrow pointed to former Gov Roland as just one example, so we have a warped perception of what's acceptable and what's not at the state level I guess.

  • Sitka Gear