Bowsite.com

I guess I am not sure why or how you think Larry would make a 20-year business out of lying to his customers and then providing them the raw footage. It seems like a pretty bad business model. But maybe that's just me.

Nope; I've been very busy on a project of much greater importance; calculating the ideal ratio of Fluff to Peanut Butter for the perfect Fluffernutter.

In your honor I have switched from Jif to "Skippy"......

Oh and I have also included a photo to refresh your memory. From left to right that's my research associate Michael Short, Wildlife Division Director Rick Jacobson, me, you, and Howard.

Is this the The Davis IR survey in question?

And Airrow, if what you say is true then you should be able to back it up with facts. Who did the study and can you please provide the data?

The contracted review was Glen's idea and his baby so I can't speak to the details. Your interest in getting up to speed on this subject is something I hope I can help you out on.

I'd like to run a few scenarios up the flagpole for you and would be interested in your take on them.

Here's what we know:

1. The Davis IR film of Jan 15, 2015 (yes, what you linked is the survey in question) reportedly showed 44 confirmed deer within the original 1 square mile White Birch test area.

2. That survey (Davis Aviation IR) went beyond the original 1 square mile White Birch test area and actually covered a total of 2.12 square miles.

3. The explanation given for this expansion was that it was necessary to "mitigate the effects of baiting on the periphery to pull in deer from outside the original 1 square mile White Birch test area."

4. Surveys conducted in Jan in addition to the Davis survey were reported to show 30+ dpsm in the original White Birch (and Pheasant Ridge) 1 square mile test areas.

5. 2015 was year 3 of the ITM Study and White Buffalo was authorized to cull 25 deer (combined, in total) from both test areas.

6. The CAES surveyed the original 1 square mile White Birch test area on March 3, 2015 and recorded a raw count of 9 deer in the 1 square mile.

OK, now we have the facts prior to the deer cull (and item 6 after) in hand. Now those facts raise a few questions:

1. If there were 30+ dpsm in the original 1 square mile test area why would it be necessary to bait on the periphery to pull in deer from outside the 1 square mile?

2. If your target deer density was 10 dpsm (in the test areas were deer culls would take place) and your available target population (based on 30+ at each area) provided you with 40+ potential targets to get 25 deer culled wouldn't you agree if the count was accurate (30+ dpsm) you had not only ample supply of deer but "extra buffer" to acheive your goal?

3. Would this activity make more sense if the number of deer in the original 1 square mile test area was closer to 11-12 and not 30+ (or 44)?

4. If there were 30+ dpsm in the original 1 square mile test area would it make sense to you that White Buffalo, in the span of almost 2 weeks was only able to cull 2 deer from the original 1 square mile White Birch test area?

5. If there were 30+ dpsm in the original 1 square mile test area why was it White Buffalo needed to go 5/8 mile outside of that test area to cull an additional 3 deer?

6. Do the facts stated in Questions 4 and 5 make any sense if the 30+ dpsm (or 44) reported in the original 1 square mile White Birch test area was accurate?

7. Do the facts stated in Questions 4 and 5 make perfect sense if the actual number of deer in the original 1 square mile White Birch test area was closer to 11 or 12 deer?

The CAES survey of March 3, 2015 only showed a raw count of 9 deer inside the original 1 square mile test area; adding the 2 deer that White Buffalo killed inside the original 1 square mile test area would bring the pre-shoot count up to 11 deer. This is exactly what Vision Air Research showed on their Jan 10, 2015 survey.

Leave Glen's review alone for now (which says 12 deer); given the facts laid out above which deer population seems more likely to you?

I'd really like your feedback on this.

My most recent post was not a concoction; what I did was post the facts about what happened from Jan 2015 up to and including the survey you flew in early March.

Absent Glen's review there isn't anything I listed that should be in dispute as it's all your numbers.

For someone with nothing to hide it's odd that rather than sit back and allow Cory (or anyone else to weigh in) you post right away basically asking everyone to let this go.

From my perspective someone secure in their facts would be content to sit back and observe and let the opinions get posted, certain they'd be watching them line up on their side of the ledger. This constant "back-off" refrain speaks more to someone not wholly confident that their numbers will hold up to any serious scrutiny and that an increasing number of readers may be drawing conclusions similar to mine.

Whether you believe it or not when you post like you just did you lend a lot more weight to my questions and ultimately to my side of the argument. I'm certain some readers are wondering more about why you're so concerned about how I spend my time than whether I've fallen and hit my head a few too many times.

I have no clue who Glen's "expert" is who reviewed the tapes of Davis, but let's just say I have more faith in Larry's review of his own footage than in an anonymous "expert." Yes we counted fewer deer there in March than Larry did in April. Why? I don't know. What we didn't do is come up with some sinister plan to artificially inflate numbers like you have accused us of in the past. We reported what we saw. Larry said he saw 44 the day he flew in January. We saw 9 and knew 2 were removed when we flew 2 months later. Conspiracy? That seems a pretty big jump seeing as we are reporting truthful numbers. Deer have legs and a brain and move around. We were baiting when Larry flew and maybe deer moved into the suburbs and out of Topstone by the time we flew in March cause they were sick of the snow. Can we control deer? No. Did we report the numbers as we saw them? Yes. You guys argue this moving target and it is ridiculous. First we are lying and inflating numbers, correction factor, blah, blah, blah. And now you love our numbers because they match Vision Air for White Birch in 2015 only? Dude, the numbers are what they are. We report what we see as does Davis, as does DEEP. Do deer move? Yes. Do they stay confined to an imaginary boundary I created on a computer? No. Let's look at DEEP's data for the transects they flew last year in Fairfield County and see the variation there. Same exact transects flown 4 times can vary considerably. When I accompanied them on 2 of their transects down there in March of last year, we saw next to nothing, and they reported as such. Single digits. That's why they fly them each 4 times for replication because of that variation. Deer move bro. Counting deer is far from an exact science. If they stayed still like trees, it would be a lot easier. Did you read the Minnesota Hunting Article thread? It said that we are wasting time and resources trying to get an exact count of deer, which is why I posted it. You guys stick to these numbers like they are as solid as Planck's constant. A deer survey is a snapshot it time. At that hour, that's where they were. The next hour after you are done, they have already redistributed themselves.

The deer were removed by White Buffalo as part of the 3-year ITM Study on 2 of the 4 1-square mile test areas (the link provided by Cory would be a good source for you to get up to speed on the how, what and why).

The study was funded by a grant from the CDC and all the proper permits and permissions were secured (see report for signing off by the CT DEEP).

The report will also speak to the extent of town involvement in the project and will provide all agencies, organizations, etc. who's input to the project was provided.

The issue was sportsmen and women was the answer to the question "to what end?"

To gain insight to that one would need to brush up on what the message has been with regard to deer since Mumford Cove and it would also help to visit the webpage of the Fairfield County Municipal Deer Alliance. It is hard to come away with any other conclusion than "the end" would be a systematic town-by-town severe reduction in the deer populations across every town in Fairfield County (if not beyond).

As has been alluded to here we (sportsmen and women) would be presented with a choice; sign on as the stick and string version of White Buffalo or watch as that role was filled by those willing to embrace the bold new world of hunting as has been clearly defined by those paying attention and sit on the sidelines fighting over the scraps left over.

That is why the efforts that have been made by some here have been and continue to be made. That is why some here have ponied up more than $10K in their personal funds (and continue to invest personal funds, e.g. for the independent review mentioned); the majority of the people here do not accept the view of a minority on the future of hunting and will not go gently into that good night.

Thanks for getting involved and I've sent you a PM.

You couldn't let it go could you? Some guys:)

Creamy tends to slide off the fluff and create acute sticky mouth syndrome......

You were not allowed to shoot in the park; is the reason you baited 4+ shooting sites around the edges ( North, South, East & West ) of Topstone Parks`, 280 acres; drawing the deer into shooting position and then you were caught illegally recovering deer inside the park without permission. During the three year ITM study White Buffalo removed 39 deer from Topstone Park, 44% of the three year total; so much for not hunting on town land ! The CAES notified the ( FCMDMA ) Deer Aliance (Dave Streit); at the end of the three year ITM study ( 3/9/15 ), there were only 2 deer left in Topstone Park (White Birch) test area; and they called this a tick study !

I do I do I do i do I do believe in GVT coverups. Doubt this is much different.

Unfortunately Scott; this thread is about the White Birch test area, you have posted a picture / map of your expanded Pheasant Ridge test site. Please try and stay on topic; we will discuss Pheasant Ridge and single digit deer numbers next week.

I thought the FLIR survey was supposed to show deer density in the TEST AREAS so that WB could be authorized to shoot deer,...inside the test areas? So am I now hearing that the expanded FLIR was ok since it documented DPSM, but some were outside the test area?

It could be that the rest of the tax payers of Connecticut are concerned about your actions during the CDC ITM study in Redding, CT.

Davis aviation flew the IR survey on 1/15/15 and did not sign a contract with the CAES until 1/18/15; Davis would also critique himself as the only viable contractor to do the job; thereby disqualifying all other potential venders. I have never heard this before, a contractor stating he is the only qualified one to do the job.

So "Tony" brings in Davis Aviation to do a survey in order to find enough deer in a test area for "White Buffalo" to shoot; "Tony" then directs Davis to fly outside the test areas and expand the test sites; yet the CAES has not given authority to "Tony" to do this. Three days later Davis Aviation signs a contract with the CAES for survey work ( which was finished on 1/15/15 ); directed by "Tony".

So Davis Aviation states there are - 44 deer in White Birch, so "White Buffalo" can shoot. In reality the Davis film only shows 12 deer in the test area. The CAES confirms this with their own count of 11 deer; and Vision Air FLIR confirms with a count of 11 deer.

So now we come to the part of White Buffalo shooting outside the test areas; if there were 44 + deer in the test area ( that the CAES confirmed ) why did WB have to shoot outside of the test area to get ( 3 ) deer ?

THIS IS SCIENCE folks! Don't you know that the research proves what they say it proves? There are PhDs involved! We can't possibly expect to understand the complicated information presented; and frankly we should feel honored that such esteemed researchers deem us worthy of blessing us with their highly developed knowledge.

Remember when they initiated this entire Tick study by first shooting as many deer as they could find, and then counting all the live ones, counting the dead ones, and adding them together for an accurate total? That's an interesting technique isn't it?

The guy who is the lead researcher on the project, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer's money, obtained his PhD with money provided by the guy who got paid to kill the deer in the study, who used to be his boss.. What could possibly be wrong with that?

This research involved complicated research techniques, and MATH. And let us not forget that it necessitates counting. Sometimes, well into double digits! In some cases it involves scientifically documenting invisible animals for goodness sakes. How can we simple hunters be expected to keep up?

And what are we to make of the fact that the map posted by DocScott is missing an entire road within the testing area?

This is almost as entertaining as watching Donald Trump spout off on things which he knows so little about. Alas, I'm guessing that the researcher involved is a Feel-The-Bern guy, since he lives off the government teat.

I’m not going to address your “expert’s” analysis of Larry’s footage, if such an "expert" actually exists, I am going to use the analysis of the guy who flew and took the video. But what I will address is the survey encompassing the target area and beyond. That was dealt with in Mike in CT’s “FOIA” request and includes an email response from Larry himself included in the link provided.

Chas, as always, thank you for your contribution. And again with the Ph. D. nonsense. What is your obsession with my Ph. D.? Seldom, if ever, do I mention it but you do every chance you get. And you should know that my Ph. D. schooling was paid for by me from my salary working for the State of CT. I hauled tons and tons of corn for White Buffalo when they were involved with the CAES 4-poster study in fall 1999 for like $15/hour when I was a grad student at Yale. Then, later on, Dr. DeNicola was on my advisory committee at UConn. And another thing, “The guy who is the lead researcher on the project spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer's money, obtained his PhD with money provided by the guy who got paid to kill the deer in the study, who used to be his boss.” Are you suggesting that Dr. Kirby Stafford, lead researcher on the project, received his Ph. D. on White Buffalo funds? Dr. DeNicola was in high school when Dr. Stafford got his Ph. D., so how is that even possible? How could Dr. DeNicola be Dr. Stafford’s boss? So confused.

And again with the deer counting. If I know 15 deer were taken off a study area, I can line up the carcasses on the ground and count all of them, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Admittedly, I need to take off my left boot and sock to get all the way to 15, but I can see the carcasses right there in front of me on the ground. No correction factor, no nothing. 15 deer. No disputing that. If anything, you should be more confident in those counts in which we actually had a carcass in hand. Remember that a survey done before any take could occur was added as a condition of the Authorization in Year 2 of the study. It was not a condition in the original Authorization which is why we were permitted to shoot and do a survey later. That way, we could save taxpayer money and do one survey and determine both pre and post-shoot deer densities with a single survey, yes by adding in the known number of deer taken. Not sure what the problem is, beyond emotions. . .

With regard to the counting, I'm sure that you're competent to count as high as 15 (but thank you for demonstrating it) I'll state what was obvious to everyone else except you (apparently).

Shooting the deer, then counting them and adding together the numbers of dead and live deer to arrive at the Pre Study number is a problem because (pay attention now):

IF YOU WERE WRONG (and you were!) about your guesstimate of pre-study numbers you just might kill too many.

Do you really not grasp this stuff or do you just think that by playing the confused act some people here might be fooled?

Obviously Rick Jacobson wasn't fooled by your pretend research the first year of your study. That's why he implemented the requirement that a population count be done BEFORE you killed any deer the next two years. Oh, and they also decreased the number you were permitted to shoot, in response to your being so wrong about your guesstimate of the original deer numbers.

OK, I have pulled you string ... spew away

You might want to consider a career as a politician, you seem to have the skills for it.

Clearly you are not aware of the time or effort to achieve densities that we were seeking. It doesn't just happen accidentally or sneak up on you. It takes about 50% effort to take the first 80% of animals you seek and another 50% effort to get the remaining 20% that are super smart and super cagey. This wasn't WB's first go round. Rick responded to you guys by changing the terms of the Authorization. It was hunter outcry to WB taking 51 deer in year one on areas you guys have been hunting hard for a decade, not our research methods.

I'm a scientist, not a politician. I deal with facts and verifiable statements, not fiction and conspiracies like several guys on this site.

If I ever allowed a contractor to perform work without even being "set up" in our system I would be fired. If a vendor is not set up it means no contract can be issued (not in the system so it's not possible), unless it was done with an 8.5" x 11" pad and pencil.

That comment just raises more questions in my mind. When we issue a purchase order or an MPA (Master Purchasing Agreement) it must spell out specific information to make it legal. Things like payment terms & conditions, remit to addressee, unit price, total purchase order value, it must go through the DOA (delegation of authority) process for signatures based upon dollar value, it must have exact specification that must be met, etc, etc.

You let a contractor tear the roof off your house without a written contract? How about buying a car without a purchase agreement? But have the state spend 6 figures with your friend Tony, I guess it's not a problem.

Hey Shawn - how's that for having half the story? You see, I'm not friends with anyone posting on this site, so my comments on not biased. Can you say the same?

Given that requests have been made for such a contract it is troubling that to date no such documentation has been provided.

That being said there are some areas of concern as there has yet to be any clear explanation as to the nature of the contracted relationship between Davis Aviation and the CAES, this despite mutliple requests for this information.

For example:

On Jan 25th a response to a request for information was answered with "Davis Aviation is a private contractor who's services were sought out by our collaborator and subcontractor White Buffalo, Inc." This seems to leave no doubt that the contractual relationship was between White Buffalo, Inc. and Davis Aviation.

Yet,

On Jan 26th a response read in part "Davis Aviation was deemed a sole source provider by CAES." This seems to imply a contractual relationship between the CAES and Davis Aviation. Designating a vendor as a "sole source provider" is the purview of the contracting agent.

Now let's look at the Jan 25th response in which White Buffalo, Inc. is indicated as subcontracting Davis Aviation. If this was the actual contractual relationship then why did Davis Aviation invoice the CAES for the $6,500 fee and not White Buffalo, Inc.? (see attachment)

If White Buffalo, Inc. subcontracted Davis then White Buffalo, Inc. should have been invoiced, not the CAES. The CAES could have provided funds to cover the expense (as per the Memorandum of Agreement between the CAES and White Buffalo, Inc.) not paid Davis Aviation directly as was done.

Additionally there are some issues with some actions of White Buffalo:

1. Per the aforementioned Memorandum of Agreement between the CAES and White Buffalo, Inc., specifically Item #6 "Approval must be obtained from CAES prior to entering into subcontracts.

To date after multiple requests for this information we have not been given anything that shows this authorization to subcontract Davis Aviation was either requested or granted. This despite the fact that the Jan 25th response seems to clearly state that White Buffalo, Inc. contracted Davis Aviation.

2. Item#6 (cont) "This clause should be used whenever funding is provided for subcontracting."

As I stated above if Davis was subcontracted by White Buffalo, Inc. (properly, or as it may be, improperly) funds should have been provided by the CAES to White Buffalo, Inc. to cover the $6,500 fee per Item #6. Additionally, had Davis Aviation been subcontracted by White Buffalo, Inc.(as indicated in the Jan 25th response) there would have been no need for Davis Aviation to register as a vendor with the State of CT as White Buffalo, Inc. (a non-state agency) would have disbursed the funds.

As I'm sure Bob can relate to, with my company I would not want to have to explain these inconsistencies to my contracts department.

It is items like these that are why this issue hasn't gone away and until solid, credible answers are given it is unlikely to go away.

Any party exercising usage of public funds should expect to be held accountable for the usage of those funds. When information is inconsistent, or not made available (which should never be the case) it is not only proper, but prudent that clarification(s) should be called for.

do I hear the sound of tap dancing? Vendors not set up in the system but work being done? Statements made that WB hired Davis and now it was CAES? Can't find enough deer in the one sq mile survey area so fly outside the area for the required numbers to shoot? Tap, tap, tap! :)

There are times in life when one is far better served by saying nothing than they are by stating easily discredited nonsense; case in point, your response.

Here is a very specific FOIA request made by Glen on Jan 25, 2016 and the response he received:

"Hi Glen: Per your request this morning:

1. I would like a copy of any contract between the CAES and Davis Aviation. See attachment."

No copy of a contract was provided; a nice rendering of the two-step was offered in summary at the bottom of page 2: "For all these reasons, Davis Aviation was considered a sole-source vendor which then does not require their services to be put out to bid."

Deeming a vendor a sole-source provider does not eliminate the need to contract with that sole-source provider for their services. Designation as a sole-source provider, and the elimination of the bidding process (sending out an RFP (Request for Proposal) or RFQ, RFB (Quote) (Bid)) only means that there will be no competition for the award.

As I'm sure Bob can attest contracts are still required for reasons painfully obvious to anyone like he and I who have multiple decades of experience in this arena.

As a public service I will shed some light for you on what constitutes a contract between parties:

1. A contract will have a name; it can be a formalized name, a number, a combination of letters and numbers (e.g. CDC Co-op Agreement 1U01CK000182-01)

You might be familiar with that one Scott; it specified fees to be paid to White Buffalo (Contract number given in top left corner of page 1 of the MOA between the CAES and White Buffalo, Inc.) You'll note the signatures of Louis A. Magnerelli (CAES Director) and Anthony DeNicola (White Buffalo, Inc. and the date of signature immediately below.

2. A contract will list the contracting agent and the contracted party.

3. A contract will have either an effective date (usually done in a one time fee-for-service agreement, or it will have a start date and end date.

4. A contract will clearly specify all aspects and associated charges for services to be provided by the contracted agent.

5. A contract will have signatures and date of signature from approved representatives of both parties; the contracting agent and contracted party. (refer to the aforementioned item in #1 above)

6. A contract will have "Terms & Conditions" that govern it and for which strict compliance is required from both parties; the contracting agent and contracted party.

FYI, this contract name (or number) will be referenced on any purchase orders (PO's) issued for payment.

Nothing following "see Attachment" even remotely resembles a contract.

If you haven't already seen it you'll be viewing another very specific request for this information this morning. I would highly recommend you dispense with the tap dance this time around and instead respond in the spirit of full cooperation.

this is when I hope others, who were possibly turned off by the back and forth deer count data discussion, are still listening.

The more information I hear about the relationship between WB and people employed by the state, letting the vendor determine he is the sole source (that one really shocks me!), letting your vendor fly outside the survey area to achieve the required deer count, not issuing contracts prior to services being rendered, etc, etc should raise a lot of questions in the minds of other hunters on this site.

When data is wrong we get a reply based upon other data to refute it. However when the data is correct, we get comments like "What's your point?" Or "That's not important, you must have a lot of time on your hands"

Hunters be warned - the fox is watching our hen house and if you don't question it and fight back, well, you get what you deserve.

Hey Bob to answer your question as bluntly as permitted on this site - Yes I can happily say the same!

When in doubt go to the contract itself. The contract is what matters, not when it was put in the system, not when they were made an authorized vendor. It's the contract.

Who are the parties, when was it signed, what does it say.

I can tell you where I work your statements are not correct.

1. The first step for issuing a purchase/contract/MPA is get multiple RFQ's (request for quotes)

2. Due diligence is done for each of the suppliers and a choice is made by a cross functional team (for large contracts, I can make the choice on my own for smaller contracts).

3. The vendor then must be set up in the system with all pertinent information such as price, remit to, pay terms and conditions, etc. All of these items must be part of the negotiations with the supplier before setting them up in the system.

4. Once the vendor is set - issue the purchase order or contract for the material or service to be provided.

5. The contract then must go through the DOA, Delegation of Authority, process and the higher the dollar value of the contract the higher level of approval is required. The contract is STILL not released to the supplier at this point, internal only.

6. The date on the contract is the date that's it's issued, however only after a copy has been sent to the supplier and approved is it legally binding.

Sorry for the boring details.

thanks for clarification. Based upon previous posts I assumed you were good friends with people in the CAES. If that's not correct I apologize for the error.

Your talking about all the back shop stuff. None of that really matters to the relationship between the parties.

The contract is what matters.

As between Davis and whomever they contracted with (there seems to be some doubt as to the parties), it doesn't matter whether their were three bids or none, what diligence took place or didn't, etc.

You start with the contract, find out what the binding relationship is or was at the time of service, then if you want to back track and find out if correct internal processes were followed to reach that relationship you can, but the contract is where you start.

ok, I understand what you're driving at now. You're correct, what's on the contract is the binding information, all discussions and what-if's prior to putting the contract in place don't matter.

Mr. Last, The responses to requests received on Jan 25th and Jan 26th seem contradictory; one seems to suggest the contractual relationship was between the CAES and Davis Aviation, the other seems clearly to point ot White Buffalo, Inc. subcontracting Davis Aviation.

To clarify this situation we would like to see either of the following documents:

1. A signed contract between the CAES and Davis Aviation

From: Williams, Scott Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 12:35 PM To: Last, Michael Subject: RE: Seventh - FOIA Request / 2/4/16 - Request for additional information

1. A signed contract between the CAES and Davis Aviation

" They have been provided Davis Aviation’s PO information already."

Who issued the PO to Davis Aviation and when?

Assuming that no actual service agreement exists, which appears to be the case if they didn't produce one, the issuer of the PO would argue that the PO terms control the relationship.

That seems all kind of wrong.

Are you sure the date of service is January 15?

The relationship is definitely between CAES and Davis. Nothing on that PO suggests otherwise unless there is an underlying agreement that predates the PO.

White Buffalo started to shoot deer on - 1/16/15

Davis Aviation (signs) - CT Vendor Form on - 1/18/15

Davis Aviation (signs) - W-9 Tax Form on - 1/18/15

PO (purchase order) for Davis Aviation is created on 1/30/15, with no signature from Davis; see above. PO issued by - Agricultural Experiment Sta. ( CAES ).

The dates don't add up and the documentation supporting the services don't add up.

The PO should have been issued in advance of the service date. The fact that it was issued after the service date is a problem.

I would be surprised if the state has a process that services can be rendered without a contract or PO in place first, but this is CT, we are not particularly known to be fiscally responsible, so who knows.

The dates don't add up and the documentation supporting the services don't add up.

The PO should have been issued in advance of the service date. The fact that it was issued after the service date is a problem.

I would be surprised if the state has a process that services can be rendered without a contract or PO in place first, but this is CT, we are not particularly known to be fiscally responsible, so who knows.

that was the point I thought you were driving at previously, that it didn't matter when the purchase order was issued, but REALLY does. That's why I responded that it most certainly does where I work and provided the sequence of events we follow.

In any case, where did CAES run off to? Getting new tap shoes? Wearing the old ones a bit thin?

I was under the assumption that a contract was in place first.

In this case it seems that there is no formal contract and the CAES is working off of PO only and the PO didn't get issued until two weeks after the services were performed.

Not ideal for sure. In the big scheme of things, this really is not a big deal on a $6,500 service. It does appear that this was not done correctly based on what is presented here. Can't say as I am surprised, I assume the state isn't particularly careful when spending my money.

I was under the assumption that a contract was in place first.

In this case it seems that there is no formal contract and the CAES is working off of PO only and the PO didn't get issued until two weeks after the services were performed.

Not ideal for sure. In the big scheme of things, this really is not a big deal on a $6,500 service. It does appear that this was not done correctly based on what is presented here. Can't say as I am surprised, I assume the state isn't particularly careful when spending my money.

I was under the assumption that a contract was in place first.

In this case it seems that there is no formal contract and the CAES is working off of PO only and the PO didn't get issued until two weeks after the services were performed.

Not ideal for sure. In the big scheme of things, this really is not a big deal on a $6,500 service. It does appear that this was not done correctly based on what is presented here. Can't say as I am surprised, I assume the state isn't particularly careful when spending my money.

The bottom line is a PO is not a contract; references are made to the need for a contract in the fine print.

What we have here is services were somehow contracted (according to the CAES) without a contract (as the PO was the contract which is not true) and those services were paid over 2 weeks after the services were rendered.

I agree in the grand scheme of things the amount ($6,500) is relatively small. The larger issue is that if the proper procedures for contracting are not followed for a small amount what assurances can we, the taxpayers take that due diligence and proper procedures are in place for much larger amounts of money?

It comes down to the need for the taxpayers of this state to be able to trust in the process; this particular example does nothing to foster that trust and the dismissive attitude of the principal parties only broadens the divide between the governors and the governed.

If this scenario had unfolded in Bob's world or my world people would be held accountable, no ands, ifs or buts. The state is not exempt from ethical standards in contracting.

The PO does not in fact require that an underlying contract be in place. The PO contemplates that a contract may not yet exist when the PO is issued. The PO is intended to create the contract, in the absence of a contract.

What the PO is missing is reference to terms and conditions that control in the event that preceding contract has not been agreed upon when the PO is issued. There may be some T&C's somewhere.

It would be unusual for the state to have signed contracts with all of its service providers, particularly one offs like this provider.

Nothing wrong with the PO, and nothing wrong with having no contract prior to issuing the PO. Clearly something wrong with the timing of the PO relative to the date of service.

I have been a commercial lawyer for 15 years now. I may not know how to count deer, but I do know contracts.

I have been a wildlife biologist for 15 years now. I may not know much about commercial contracts, but I do know how to count deer. Cheers Toonces! Seriously.

Exactly. We still have some glaring inconsistencies; for example the CAES has referred to the hiring of Davis Aviation as having been done by them; how then does one "hire" a private contractor absent either a contract or at minimum a request for bid (accepted by the vendor) or some type of memorandum of agreement.

I can accept the premise of the PO functioning as a contract but not after the fact of services delivered at an agreed-upon price.

The PO, if it was to function in the absence of a contract (either because one tendered was not agreed upon and signed by all parties) or because one was never tendered (again, this calls into question how a vendor can be contracted in the first place) should still have been issued prior to the service(s) being rendered, not after the fact.

Another troubling aspect is the timing of Davis Aviation requesting to be added to the state of CT's list of approved vendors on Jan 18th. Bear in mind the flight (with it's invoiced cost of $6,500) occurred on Jan 15th; 3 days prior to Davis Aviation submitting a request form to be added to the list of approved vendors with the state of CT. For the sake of argument how would this situation have played out if for some reason that request was denied? How could the CAES have hired Davis when they were not an approved vendor and had not in fact yet applied to become one?

Lastly, to clarify, while the PO may state an underlying contract need not be in place it does not state that such a contract need not exist. That is more than a simple difference attributable to mere semantics.

For all those in attendance who think any contractor will move equipment at their expense absent something ensuring payment from a prospective contracting agent I have some beachfront property in Kansas for sale.....

You would be very surprised what buyers and sellers will do without the benefit of a contract. I will take that beach front property.

Doc,

The process is wrong regardless of how inconsequential it is. The PO isn't even back dated and references service obligations in the months following when the services were rendered. It's a mess.

That said, I know mistakes are made and that these things can happen. Mostly the reason why I can't muster the outrage over it is because the state has just worn me down. I don't expect them to do anything right so I can't get angry when they meet my expectations.

a purchase order is considered a legal binding document and we don't issue contracts with all of our suppliers, only the repeat, large vendors and then we issue a contract (MPA - Master Purchasing Agreement). Once our vendor accepts the purchase order without change, then all work must be done to the purchase order.

However, at no time is ANY vendor allowed to start services or mfg anything until a purchase order is issued AND approved. Delegation of Authority is the process where the purchase order gets approved by your boss, or your boss's boss, or your boss's boss's boss, depending on the dollar value. And yes, I get challenged on things like the piece price, payment terms, lead times, etc on a consistent basis, so I'm surprised the state allows work without this document in hand.

I know Toonces can probably give several examples of where things like this happen, but it's not a best practice and can lead to legal issues.

Thanks for your input and further clarification. As I indicated in my response to Toonces I can accept the premise of the PO functioning in lieu of or in place of (for small dollar one-time work) a contract.

For me that's not the issue so much as what you've also pointed out (and Toonces too in referencing the PO not being back-dated to reflect the actual date of services rendered) the inappropriate nature of work being performed prior to a PO being issued and approved by the principal parties.

Like Toonces I am also not surprised by the shoddy processes under which state of CT agencies operate on our dime. It isn't hard to fathom how a state with all the resources CT has can sink into the fiscal toilet with such regularity; we have a state government that thinks the people serve them, not the other way around. The cavalier attitude when problems are surfaced only reinforces that notion.

The upside is we're fast approaching the point where the only direction things can go is up......

Maybe you don't keep up on current events and missed all those incorrect cancellations of motor vehicle registrations and the subsequent headaches created. Early on that was "no big deal" as evidenced by the slow response in effective remediation.

And perhaps you missed the latest fiscal woes created by yet another paint-by-numbers budget process.

It isn't always about you Scott, though you do stand head-and-shoulders above your state agency peers with the blatant "you can all pound sand" attitude towards the peasantry.

I'm never seen your CV but I feel safe in guessing an honor graduate citation from an Emily Post course wouldn't be listed under "other qualifications".....

you're missing the point, it's not a "big deal",......in state government circles. No purchase orders, fly outside the survey zone to get the deer count up, let your vendor do the due diligence on the other vendors, etc. I take that to mean - they do things like that all the time in state government.

My goodness!

I guess it wouldn't surprise you then to learn that White Buffalo had funding ($12,400 in unused processing funds that could have been used for census survey work) that would have covered cost of the Davis IR survey but was allowed to keep the funding at the direction of CAES employee Kirby Stafford (KS) due to their having to deal with "hunter intervention" during the study.

FYI, said "hunter intervention" amounted to a few concerned individuals insisting that White Buffalo adhere to the terms of the DEEP Volunteer authorization.

By now I fully expect "extra" money to be handed over to WB even though they did not meet the terms of agreement. It just makes sense with everything else the state allowed. And the answer we get is very familiar, "what difference does it make?". Is Hillary a PhD too.

See White Buffalo Invoice # 2015-12 (3/1/15), Description (Project Demobilization) the CAES paid WB $9,236.34, for two people ( the project supervisor and a wildlife biologist ) for picking up 2 garbage cans (used as gun rests) and going home. Also approved by; CAES employee Kirby Stafford (KS).

-----Original Message----- From: Last, Michael To: Glen Ekstrom Sent: Mon, Feb 8, 2016 11:19 am Subject: RE: 9th - FOIA request for Monday

Good Morning Glen,

Attached please find the completed grant request form to the CDC. The document includes the Principal Investigator as Dr. Kirby Stafford and Dr. Scott Williams as the Senior/Key Person (Wildlife Biologist).

Thank you Mike

Maybe they were really big trash cans and they had to rent a forklift?

don't you know that if someone is taking a video that you can't bait or fire a gun! Jeez, man everyone knows that.

I thought it was going to be something lame like he was standing in front of the deer or running around chasing the deer away,......now that would cause a problem,.....but taking a video?? Really??

Just hand over the money to your good friend Tony, nothing to see here, just business as usual at the state level.

what's even more irritating is the cavalier attitude state officials have about these things. Yeah, we told him to keep the money because the big bad hunters were taking videos of them. Wouldn't any of us love to have money handed over just because the job got difficult.

Let’s look at Item 5 of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the CAES and White Buffalo as a for instance. It reads “Recognizing that there may be some alternative deer processing options to that budgeted in the agreement, funds allocated for deer carcass removal and processing may be redirected to a deer census upon mutual agreement between the PI, Kirby C. Stafford III, and White Buffalo, Inc. without modification of this agreement.”

Item 11 of the MOA stated “Any funds remaining unspent upon termination of this agreement will be returned to CAES.”

Approximately $12,400 of such funds were available to be used for a census survey (e.g. Davis) but at the discretion of Kirby Stafford those funds were kept by White Buffalo. Hey, if the CAES can wave their hands and hand over $12,400 what’s $9,200 and change for hauling a couple of garbage cans away, right?

White Buffalo did perform a deer cull in Jan 2015, year 3 of the ITM study. They could have continued to cull deer into March of 2015 but elected not to. The “convenience” meme would ascribe this reality to the infamous “hunter intervention”; a more likely scenario is simply the lack of deer. The latter scenario is certainly supported by the extension of baiting (this is what was being videotaped by those “interventionist hunters” by the way) and the fact that White Buffalo needed to shoot well outside of the original test areas to cull less than half the year 3 project goal (11 versus 25).

I find it interesting that anyone would consider videotaping baiting activity as a cause for concern; most people acting within acceptable or legal parameters don’t feel threatened by their actions being videotaped.

Jason, I feel your frustration; as someone who’s probably always played by the rules it has to sting seeing these examples of where a state agency appears to consider them “optional.” I’m sure you have an expectation of accountability and it has to also sting to see such glaring examples of a state employee who quite clearly feels accountability is for other people and oversight means “missing a few little deviations now and then.” Of course those of us who live and work in the real business world understand it has a much different meaning and for us, potentially serious consequences if we’re not playing by the rules.

What’s plainly evident is that someone quite clearly is chafing over the gall of some CT taxpayers holding his agency accountable for tax dollars spent. Clearly this is breaking new ground and the histrionics and the dismissive “no big deals” are as polite a “go **** yourselves” as a taxpayer can hope to get. Sorry, but any state agent is accountable to the taxpayers and liking it is not a prerequisite. And while you may wonder who we are to dare to demand accountability, the fact of the matter is state employees are paid for through our tax dollars; you work for us, not the other way around.

Lastly, it’s ironic a concern about “fulfilling legal contractual obligations” is offered as an excuse when the project had consistently treated rules as minor inconveniences to be circumvented when and as often as needed.

when did Hillary get on this site. "What difference does it make!!!" Sad! Very sad!

Folks working in both private and public sectors need to be reminded of that from time to time and should take it to heart in my opinion and not dismiss it. It is vitally important.

Trust from shareholders and taxpayers is not given, its earned.

It's quite obvious to everyone paying attention that "recreational"(primarily bow) hunting managed the deer herd well enough to reduce it to the point where even rifle carrying, night shooters couldn't find nearly as many deer to shoot as they wanted to kill.

Of course to save face, they blame those very same hunters for disrupting their study. I would suggest that in the future White Buffalo include a disclaimer on their contracts that says: If the local hunters mess up our Deer Killing efforts by such heinous means as video taping us, or posting mean things on the internet, we expect to be paid anyway, and in fact think we will have earned a bonus.

Perfect

So now you want WB to have killed MORE deer? The interference was a little more than name calling and videoing. I don't feel the need to list off all of what happened. Local hunters were hardly the innocent victims you and Mike make them out to be. I called it off in the end, not WB. How many more years are we going to talk about this?

The reason your deer killers came up short isn't necessarily lack of skills, it's what everyone else here knows, and what you find so hard to admit: YOU WERE WRONG ABOUT THE NUMBERS!

Now why you were wrong is perhaps relevant, you might have been lying because you really really really wanted to do a Tick Study and so you faked the numbers. OR, perhaps you were lied to ... perhaps you were just a tool used to drive the deer number down far below what any self respecting conservation minded hunter would ever want. You and your cohorts insisted on using old numbers, and on counting those invisible deer. Then when it came time to shoot, "OOPS, we can't find enough"

What is beyond doubt is that you, and your CAES buddies, and your (edit: White Buffalo) Buddies, and your BeSafeRedding Buddy were shown to be flat out wrong. Also, some of you were shown to be flat out liars.

Blaming the hunters for your failure is a joke. Before anyone in town even know you guys were shooting, you came up ridiculously short of your first year goal of 150 deer (I believe you killed 51).

Spin away all you want. Many folks here have spent far more hours in the woods than you all over Redding (and other nearby towns) and they know that your comments of how many deer there are left are laughable.

Continue to tell lies, and the guys who know the truth will continue to call you out.

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.

“Oh Scotty, you're so under informed, or perhaps it's deliberate misdirection. The Redding archers hunted all over the town. The acreage you refer to was Town Land (and it was 1100+ acres) scattered around the whole town. Add to that the several thousand acres of Private land that the Redding Deer Wardens were asked to refer hunters on. As you can see if you bothered to look, the number of deer taken (when the population was at its peak) far exceeded what you and your White Buffalo night shooters were capable of. If your buddy told you that the Deer Wardens didn't get involved in hunting private land, he lied.”

OK. Let’s be fair here and compare apples to apples. So by your own admission here, “Redding archers hunted all over the town.” You would agree that WB was restricted to 2 square miles plus or minus? Yes? And yes you are correct that the ”number of deer taken (when the population was at its peak) far exceeded what you and your White Buffalo night shooters were capable of.” I don’t disagree. That is because your crew had 32 square miles at their disposal. WB had give or take 2 square miles. I don’t have access to my work computer where I have the Redding town deer take report for 2013, as I recall it was somewhere around 100 deer taken, maybe? But that is from memory so to be fair, let us look at hard numbers on the DEEP Deer Program Summary for 2013 for total deer taken from Redding that includes the town program and private harvest (http://www.ct.gov/deep/lib/deep/wildlife/pdf_files/game/deersum2013.pdf). There it states that Redding archers, shotgun/rifle, landowners, and muzzleloader hunters harvested 141 deer in Town. So if Redding is 32 square miles, and as you just said “Redding archers hunted all over the town”, that equates to 4.4 deer/square mile reduction, even given firearms take! WB killed 51 on 2 square miles in 2013, or 25.5 deer/square mile reduction. Hmmmmmm.

“The reason your deer killers came up short isn't necessarily lack of skills, it's what everyone else here knows, and what you find so hard to admit: YOU WERE WRONG ABOUT THE NUMBERS!”

Oh, I think we both know I am not wrong about the numbers. Neither is DEEP. Or Siburn. He saw with his own eyes. It is not hard to admit. Me, DEEP, and Siburn know there are lots of deer on the ground. It is you and your ilk who remain willfully ignorant.

“Now why you were wrong is perhaps relevant, you might have been lying because you really really really wanted to do a Tick Study and so you faked the numbers. OR, perhaps you were lied to ... perhaps you were just a tool used to drive the deer number down far below what any self respecting conservation minded hunter would ever want. You and your cohorts insisted on using old numbers, and on counting those invisible deer. Then when it came time to shoot, "OOPS, we can't find enough"”

Right. Because I love ticks that much.

“What is beyond doubt is that you, and your CAES buddies, and your Whitetail Solution Buddies, and your BeSafeRedding Buddy were shown to be flat out wrong. Also, some of you were shown to be flat out liars.”

Ummmm. What? I do have buddies at CAES and I have met Dave a couple times. I have never met any of the Whitetail Solution guys, ever. Emailed a couple times, yes. Does that mean we are buddies?? What are we lying about? Dave kills a boat load of deer annually I do know that, mostly from this site.

“Blaming the hunters for your failure is a joke. Before anyone in town even know you guys were shooting, you came up ridiculously short of your first year goal of 150 deer (I believe you killed 51).”

Ugh. You want us to have killed even more deer?? So confused.

“Spin away all you want. Many folks here have spent far more hours in the woods than you all over Redding (and other nearby towns) and they know that your comments of how many deer there are left are laughable.”

Right. Laughable. You guys need to learn how to hunt is all and not just sit in the same swingset year after year. I have provided maps of where the deer are for the years 2013, 2014, and 2015 and posted them on this site multiple times. I put them on a map and provided them to you all and still you cannot kill deer.

“Continue to tell lies, and the guys who know the truth will continue to call you out.”

Show me where I have ever lied. Please. Still waiting for you to call me out. Still waiting. . .

You've got to remember that the caes allowed their vendor exclude all other vendors when issuing the purchase order after the shooting started so is it surprising we continue to hear everyone else is wrong? Not a scientific argument is it.

Actually I think there's a growing sentiment that Glen's had the numbers right all along. In the meantime you may want to re-read what Glen wrote: "The following data is the result of several Private Company reviews, of the Davis Aviation IR Survey Film-Results - 2/9/16.

I hope you understand that "several" means more than one, but let me know if you don't given how often you post about being "so confused."

"Why? Because your numbers repeatedly are too perfect. Now you are saying that your private "expert" reviewed Davis's tape and, shock, they counted the exact same number of deer that VisionAir counted in the same area?

Go back and re-read what Glen wrote; the total in the reviews of the original study area is 9, not 11. Oops.

It is just not believable man. Nature is not that precise.

Well, the variance between the two sets of numbers is 18.2%; hardly the 1:1 consensus you posited. One might call that variance "natural", unless one walks around perpetually "so confused."

Deer are smart, have a brain, legs, and move. Anyone in the biological sciences knows that.

Yes, and you seem perfectly cognizant of that fact when you explained why your CAES flight of 3/3/2015 only counted 9 deer in the White Birch study area.

Funny how you seemed to forget this reality that anyone in the biological sciences knows when dismissing Vision Air's counting 11 in the same one square mile study area.

Are you suggesting that on that day the deer didn't have a brain, legs and move?

Ace,

This one's for you:

"Show me where I have ever lied. Please. Still waiting for you to call me out. Still waiting. . .

Right here for starters:

"Ugh. You want us to have killed even more deer?? So confused."

No one's ever stated they wanted White Buffalo to kill more deer and that's been discussed multiple times. In spite of this you trot out this lame meme whenever you have no way out of the corner you've painted yourself into.

Of course, given the fact that by your own admission you're perpetually "so confused" we probably shouldn't hold it against you.

I'm more forgiving now (given your handicap) about all those "quotes" you conjured up that I never made because your house of cards arguments fell over as soon as the first breeze blew.

And God knows I had to have said at least half a dozen times on the tick thread that Westport was an example of deer numbers not correlating with lyme incidence yet you insist on debunking my "study".

I know, facts can be stubborn things, especially when they pop such a gaping hole in your propaganda.

Speaking of which, as an advisor to the FCMDA you really should post a disclaimer when you point to deer number reductions producing decreased lyme incidence.

That's lying by omission; you leave out the fact that those results have never been shown to occur in open settings.

Yup, you're just a paragon of virtue there Scott.....

Do you think he actually believes he's winning anyone over? Perhaps someone should offer him the advice that when you find you've dug yourself a hole, you should stop digging.

Ace, that's all you got? Digging a hole? I was hoping for more.

This thread is about White Birch and your numbers. Whether intentional or by shear clumsiness, it still appears to be deception.

Now that you and the CAES are under the magnifying glass maybe you can tell us what happened to the 39 missing deer on the Davis IR survey film for the White Birch test area.

Case in point of your lying Scott; I never called it a "study" and in the tick thread I think I brought that fact up close to a half-dozen times; of course this type of nonsense has been your standard deflection when the facts don't fit your propaganda.

Here's what I dont' see you posting:

Anything disputing the fact that the deer/lyme incidence correlation has never been demonstrated in an open setting. (Never been demonstrated which you are fully aware of)

Anything counter to the CDC's position on deer culls as a means to lower lyme incidence. (Funny how the experts in disease echo my view on the subject not yours. Of course I'm a clinical microbiologist so I actually know what I'm talking about on the subject)

Do nothing, Lyme cases drop, therefore deer are not implicated.

And right on cue another lie. I clearly stated on the Tick thread proactive campaigns about avoidance and overall tick/lyme education were put into place; hardly "nothing". Again, facts get the way of your proganda so instead of even making a feeble attempt to rebut with actual facts you regurgitate the same nonsensical position that was never advocated for.

Seriously?

And I seriously note your avoidance of addressing the point about the missing deer and your standing by film results that by your own admission you've never viewed and are unqualified to render an opinion on.

Glen provided you with the timestamps; instead of regurgitating more lies and misrepresentations why not devote a few minutes to reviewing YOUR study? Seeing as your the guy who posted an image of headlights as an "engine block" I can see why you might be bashful about undertaking an honest review of YOUR film.

Enough of the nonsense Scott, time to do your homework. Talk about the real numbers like your 3/3/2015 White Birch flight showed.

Or come up with a really good answer to where they went and how deer only have a brain, legs and move when you're filming but never when anyone else is.

Now that little gem was really "priceless".

For instance, let’s look at the DEEP flight data for Zone 11 from last year. They have 6 transects and 2 guys fly each twice. It’s called replication. So let’s now look and see the variation between flights. Not once did they fly a transect and count the same number of deer. Not once. And look at Transect 3. On January 29 Andy counted 44 deer. On March 8, Gregonis counted 4. Or look at Transect 2 on February 6 where Gregonis counted 34 and then a month later, he only counted 5. Or Transect 6 where Andy counted 37 on January 29th and then he only counted 7 two weeks later on February 11th. This variation exists, that is why DEEP flies each transect 4 times, to minimize that influence.

So now you guys are comparing two data points that occurred 2 months apart using completely different techniques under completely different conditions. Look at the DEEP data from Fairfield County from 2015. In January their counts were highest, averaging 32.3 raw deer/square mile. In the beginning of March it was lowest with 20.1 raw deer/square mile. Larry flew in January and got a high count and we flew and March and got a low count. Kind of consistent with the DEEP data. . . I thought you guys previously accused us of inflating numbers. Now you like the White Birch numbers I reported? Did I inflate those too?

We used Davis in January because we needed to do a survey before we could sharpshoot. There was no snow on the ground in January so we couldn't use our technique, and deer were doing their thing. In March, there was a ton of snow and deer were doing a different thing. As I mentioned, the White Birch study area was dominated by Topstone Park. Deer moved out in heavy snow and into residential areas is my best guess.

I am not sure what you are accusing me of with the Davis footage, but we hired him to fly and that is the report he gave us. If I could fly, had a plane, an infrared camera and recorder, and knew how to review those tapes, I would have done it myself.

I really have to disagree that we're covering the same the same ground. Yes, the CAES is trying their best to re-direct the conversation to past talking points and not address the current issues, but I've learned several new things about the lack of controls in place with this entire project and how money was handed out without completing a contract. I also learned that the CAES allowed their vendor to discredit all others who were candidates for the project and continue to discredit other companies that provide the same FLIR service when they review the same films, and they don't have a dog in this fight! The lack on controls on the purchasing process, no delegation of authority prior to work being done, counting deer outside the 1 sq mile to get the count up, and so it goes. And the reply we get is "Is that all you got!" Indicating it's business as usual at the CAES state offices.

I agree that taxpayer money is NOT being managed efficiently, so why is the CAES allowing their employee to participate on this site at the taxpayer's expense? The rest of us are here as bow hunters, not state employees.

I've stated before I don't hunt the SW part of the state, but understanding what the state is doing with deer management and how they allow awarding contracts to their friends is something that interests me as a bow hunter and taxpayer.

Just remember that everything you may read or hear on the internet is not necessarily the truth. This goes for both sides. Little snippets of this or that don't constitute the entire story, especially with details regarding a contract. I don't speak for either side here. What you learned is that state government runs totally different than the private sector. Right or wrong, that's just the way it is and we as taxpayers have little recourse other than to vote someone out of office and wait for the next politician to come in and do the same thing.

If I have to see any taxpayer money spent, I would love more response on a public forum like this from state employees, especially the DEEP. However, after reading all of this and some of the attitudes and responses that I see on other threads, do you really think that will ever happen?

members of the CAES attend meeting with the local towns promoting WB type of actions to reduce the incidence of Lyme disease by KILLIMG THE DEER. It's not just Redding and it's not just CT. This has gone on in other states, as close as RI with the Block Island planned deer cull that was called off. So if you wait till it comes to town near you, well, it's too late isn't it. And did you listen to what the good Dr is advocating?? He wants all hunters to become deer eradicators, not hunters, but guys that go out and kill all of the deer they can,....that's the future of hunting he's promoting.

I agree, a lot of the same ground is being covered over and over, but if you take the time to read some of the attachments provided you'll find what some call "details" that would cause me to be fired where I work. As a taxpayer, that really pisses me off! We all work too hard for our money to have it thrown at the friends of CAES like it was confetti.

I, for one, give a rat's ass about the mis-management of the deer herd and my tax dollars, regardless of what part of the state I hunt or live in.

just re-read my post and it sounds like I'm mad at you (I have this problem with emails too). I'm not. I'm upset with this entire chain of events brought about by the CAES and how cavalier certain people are about some of the "details" and getting the "So what" responses from state officials. I respect your comments and appreciate your point of view.

I posted my initial response here today because this has gone beyond a normal discussion to mudslinging and knit picking like school yard children. We get it, both sides don't like each other, so lets move on. Unfortunately, somehow I know that wont happen. What has been said has been said over and over and lets move on. I'm done with this topic.

I don't have to guess; a systematic campaign of misrepresenting the outcome of Mumford Cove is the principle driving factor.

Posing that outcome as "proof" that a drastic reduction in deer numbers will translate to a significant reduction in Lyme disease incidence represents a deliberate effort to prey on the fears of well-intentioned citizens (soccer moms) to achieve a desired outcome.

The principle parties involved are fully aware of the fact that this correlation has yet to be demonstrated in open settings (not to mention the fact that many open settings show the exact opposite effect) yet they coveniently omit mention of these facts while peddling this misrepresentation from town to town.

Guys didn't like that and don't like that I'm pushing back on a site like this and not just rolling over.

Actually guys don't accept the continual misrepresentations and distortions, sprinkled with the occasional lie that you pass of as salient counterpoint.

Guys don't like that you attempt to cast yourself as a staunch advocate for hunting while ridiculing the tradition and those who live it.

Guys don't like the fact that the "hunting" you really advocate amounts to becoming swingset assassins and your position that those who don't accept this are just a collection of ignorant hayseeds.

You don't like getting called on all of the above.

the apple being offered will be the end of deer hunting in CT. Think about what's being proposed.

"The vast majority don't hunt and can't fathom killing an animal" - But somehow we're being told that we all need to turn into killing machines because that's the future of hunting. But if the vast majority don't want you to kill the deer then where is this argument going? The contradiction in that one sentence amazes me.

Traditionalists - hunters that believe in game management that meets the carrying capacity of the land so as to preserve the resource for future generations. Does that sound like we're trying to torpedo the future of hunting, or save it for you and your children?

Someone thinks the younger hunters are ignorant of what real hunting is about and trying to offer you the apple while saying, "I'm here to help, I'm your friend, just take a bite and everything will work out fine."

He absolutely can't stand the fact that us common folk, the ones he considers unworthy to even question him, can possibly know anything worthwhile. We've all dealt with his type before, usually we chuckle, scrape what he left behind off our boots and move on.

This time however, his lies, his deceptions and what he's left in his wake affect some of us in areas we care deeply about. So he gets pushback. And he's not good at pushback, he gets personal, he gets cranky and he gets petty.

He's nothing but a self serving, know it all, who gets uptight when anyone questions his credentials, his results or his motivation. Let him throw his little tantrums, it's amusing.

He can keep it up ... if he wants, but the guys who are still reading this know the score. And the best news of all, is by him continuing to respond, more people will type the name: White Buffalo, and CAES, and Scott Williams. And so when anyone does an Internet search in the future, they will find this thread, and all of the other ones, and they can read for themselves, what he and they are all about. I wonder if that will be good for business, or grants, or careers.

Only the shadow knows I suppose.

You and Mike have such a way with words that it seems like you're in my head. I appauld you guys.

Look at Redding for instance. After a townwide 10-year effort, populations were "dangerously low" according to hunters. In year 1 of the tick study, 51 deer were taken on 2 square miles after the hunting season was over. That was an alarm call and that is when all the hunter interference started, years 2 and 3.

Hunters just remain willfully ignorant of just how many deer are out there. I'm not lying, you just don't want to know the reality, because you "know" because you've "been in the woods a long time" and "boots on the ground" and all that non-quantitative experience hunters rely on for the 20-30 acres of CT they hunt.

great question. You won't get an answer.

Remember we were also told that "the vast majority of people don't want to kill animals" but now we're told towns all across CT want all the deer killed? Confusing to say the least.

But the real question is WHY do they want less deer? Lyme disease??? But no scientific evidence exists to support such a claim that less deer equates to less Lyme disease, so who would be telling these towns that killing the deer is the answer? Hmmmm, let me think and see if anyone comes to mind? Maybe it's someone who's friend offers the service of killing deer for $$$ and stands to profit from such advice to the good towns people? But who would do such an under-handed thing to the taxpayers who foot the bill?

I also wonder if anyone stopped to consider the fact that WB could only reduce the herd on 2 sq miles (not counting the deer they killed off the survey area, but that's our little secret) and not the entire town. So if hunters AND WB are not allowed on most of the private land, how is the deer herd in the entire town going to be reduced?

Could that also be the reason why hunting alone DOES reduce the deer herd on large tracts of state land where hunting pressure is high? Is this just an access to land issue and not a hunting or WB issue?

And Lyme disease can be controlled through educating people on how to manage their landscaping and checking themselves for ticks, like a certain town in CT did that doesn't allow hunting at all?

All of this scientific rhetoric is self-serving to promote one person's agenda. To justify taxpayer moneys (federal or state or town, it's all taxpayer money) spent on a study that failed to be completed and now he needs to blame someone other than his good friend Tony?

Motive is a key part of this argument. Hunters are motivated to preserve the resource and manage it, while our dedicated state employee's motive is to promote his agenda and justify his scientific study that failed. As a taxpayer I want my money back! There were no goods or services delivered from the money spent and all we got was "Beam me up Scotty" on the site.

Ask yourself why a cooperative group like the FCMDMA even exists in a state like CT. Ask yourself why no cooperative hunter advocacy group exists. Now ask yourself who is running the show? Hunters? How? By posting here? I think not.

Perhaps it's not so curious when one examines the body of evidence:

Note from page 33 of the citation:

"The typical deer population densities that have been achieved by sharpshooting programs have been in the range of 25-30 d/mi2 in communities that are typically smaller than 25 mi2, or less than half the size of Newtown." (FYI, there's more than just this snippet but nothing that contradicts the outcome described-just so no one makes ridiculous charges about cherry-picking information)

Now consider the "argument" that FCMDMA uses to promote killing deer, i.e. Mumford Cove. The selling point to these communities is when you get deer densities down to 10 (or less) per square mile lyme incidence declines. (We've already discussed the evidence that contradicts this "requirement" but as that's been discussed we'll leave it alone)

Now I find it hard to believe that someone who's had extensive history with White Buffalo and who serves as an "advisor" to FCMDMA would be unaware that the President of White Buffalo is on record (see citation above) as stating that in open settings (Newtown above) sharpshooting will basically plateau out at 20-25 dpsm or roughly twice the "magic number" cited in Mumford Cove as the cure-all.

One now has to consider two possibilities for this; either the advisor is ignorant of the expressed views of White Buffalo about this inability to achieve the required dpsm numbers (highly doubtful) or the "advisor" is aware of those facts and omits them when presenting sharpshooting as a cure-all to the communities "crying out for deer eradication."

I'll let the audience mull that one over.

Now then, what about the outcome for all parties (White Buffalo and the contracting town), specifically the failure to deliver the required dpsm numbers to drop lyme disease incidence?

Well, White Buffalo, if contracted is paid, and if the CAES study is any indication, failure to complete the objective is not a consideration in rendering payment in full.

OK, White Buffalo is taken care of, what about the town that ponied up the cash?

Oops, they get that warm and fuzzy feeling of helping others make a living and not much else (unless you count that less than warm and fuzzy feeling of feeling like you've just been had.)

Most people who have valid points feel no compulsion to fabricate quotes, twist another's words, misrepresents facts or commit lies by omission.

Most people.....

http://www.nwcsc.org/

Wow, I'll bet Bob Crook will be very hurt to learn all the years he's spent advocating for hunters have been missed by you......

NWCSC while based in and having focused on the NW corner has done extensive lobbying with the CAC and CT DEEP for all of CT for years as well. I'm sure many on this site are familiar with the efforts of people like Chris Marino and Jason Marshall to name a few.

I probably should have added the qualifier that most hunters are intimately familiar with these 2 groups and the people mentioned, the proponents of the swingset assassin crew evidently not so much.

We've seen examples of your "conversing with the public"; you do a spectacular job of propagating a lie; that the results achieved at Mumford Cove are replicable in town in FF county absent a single supporting piece of peer-reviewed literature to support that claim in an open setting.

You are right there in lockstep with those who advocate for sharpshooting despite the citation I just posted (and which you not surprisingly completely avoided responding to) in which Anthony DeNicola states that sharpshooting won't get deer densities to the "necessary levels" cited in Mumford Cove.

Your kind of "conversing with the public" would squash hunting for all but the select few; those who are the true conservationists have no future in those "conversations" of yours. Fortunately, the majority of posters here see you quite clearly now and have about as much use for you as a good case of jock itch.

Professional? Act the part then feel free to strut about this site like a peacock. Professionals present ALL information so informed decisions can be made. You've got a track record of presenting misinformation or lying by omission.

Don't smear the word "professional" by inserting your name in the same zip code in which it appears. You haven't a clue about what being a professional is and every post you put up only makes that clearer.

You want to earn that title? Start by apologizing to every soccer mom you and FCMDMA has been bs'ing for the past 10 years.

Roll into apologizing to the hunters who led the conservation movement that has generated many more hunting opportunities than you have ever credited them for, yet have only gotten scorn from you for embracing that heritage.

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.

I'm glad you ask Scott; allow me to illustrate.

Shifted target area west to exclude those herds of deer in HSP. Nice try, but obviously a lame attempt. Here's the actual map. Northeast corner. Check it in relation to the pond. Real slick.

Except that Glen's map is right on the money and lines up exactly with the image attached above which comes from page 29 of the revised proposal you submitted to the CT DEEP on Jan 10, 2013.

Nice try Scott, but a painfully and easily disproven lame attempt. Real slick right up until anyone reviews YOUR proposal and sees the map shown above.

What was it you were saying about lying again?

Also, can you please explain and illustrate areas currently in CT that you state "suburban areas are still far too high."?

He wants us all to wipe out the deer but can't share the CURRENT towns looking to do it. Holding those secret for his good friend Tony.

I hadn't heard anything in the media or from friends/family where deer numbers were so high that it was still causing environmental issues, car/deer collisions, or.....

The link is to the Fairfield County Municipal Deer Management Alliance and they are the driving force behind "towns that want deer eradicated."

The reality is that in almost every one of the 23 towns in FF county you'll find vocal advocates for deer killing and just as many vocal advocates against killing deer. It's a misrepresentation to state communities are clamoring for deer reduction; it's always a collection of individuals in these communities trying to drive that train.

Often the principle drivers are the towns delegates to the FCMDMA. If they're able to persuade enough people at town meetings to invite in FCMDMA for a presentation that's when the real magic show begins.

If you look at the home page from my link and the section titled "Public Health" you'll note a quote from Kirby Stafford of the CAES “Reducing deer densities to below 10-12 per sq mile has been shown to substantially reduce tick numbers and human Lyme disease.”

While acknowledging the audience's concerns about Lyme disease this meme is trotted out front and center as that magic bullet they've all been praying for. Ah, nothing like tugging on the heartstrings of a few soccer moms!

Of course this statement leaves out the facts that a)those results have only been demonstrated in insular settings and never in open settings like the 23 towns in FF County and b)White Buffalo is on record as stating even sharpshooting will likely plateau at about 20-25 dpsm at best.

A couple of very important points to omit if you're selling spiel centers around the control of Lyme disease through the reduction of deer populations wouldn't you say?

This stuff is all really convoluted to follow... But I have to say, low deer numbers reducing lyme has been a huge sticking point for me for years. Up here, deer density has decreased massively to at or below 10/sq mi (N.Central MA - Western MA). But lyme cases either are rising, or steadily improving detection abilities are showing more and more cases. My sense is that it's a combination. There has been a concurrent increase in coyote, bear and moose numbers - perhaps that's a component... Maybe any large host is all that's needed???

So to me, it's interesting study, but I have seen first hand how an area with low densities - or reduced densities either leads to no effect on lyme or INCREASES it over 20~ years. Admittedly, correlation is not causation... So hard to tell on an issue with so many degrees of freedom for sure!

Scott, very respectfully I ask this about hunters ability to reduce deer numbers:

Is the inability of hunters to lower numbers about the hunters ability, or, the legalities involved. For example, home set back, land access, early evening end of hunting hours all fragment, significantly, hunters ability to reduce populations. There still are opportunities, but those notes above certainly create challenges. I dont remember the setback in CT, but up here it's 500 feet. In a suburban area, that kills a TON of land that can hold deer safely out of hunters reach.

I ask, because, clearly in an area like Quabbin (I know every time I post I bring that up - I'm just real familiar with it) even short duration hunting pressure obliterated deer populations in a large wooded area. I believe each segment is hunted for 2-3 days, and some not even every year (every other year)... Yet the numbers went from 50-60+ / mi pending what you read to 8-12 (pending what you read). That's firearms (shot gun) hunting, and perhaps that's the difference. But seeing that kind of reduction, it's hard to believe hunting is unable to do the job, unless outside influences cause that to be so: limited access, weather, weapon legality, hunter decision making, etc all being factors.

These issues just have so many angles and inputs, they are really hard to distill...

Great questions; the quote is based out of studies in insular settings such as Mumford Cove and Monhegan Island (ME) to name a few. In those settings only have those type of results (correlation between deer numbers and Lyme incidence) been demonstrated and in the case of Monhegan Island there's an important caveat; there was no population of the white-footed mouse on the island.

You are correct in your hypothesis that one of the purposes of the CAES study (the deer reduction portion) was to attempt to demonstrate a similar correlation in an open setting.

The obvious problem in this attempt though centered on the point I've brought up a few times; White Buffalo is on record (Newtown Committee Meeting Minutes) as stating that a realistic sharpshooting plateau in open settings is 20-25 dpsm (well above by more than double the Mumford Cove numbers).

It's that particular point that begs the question; if that facet is already known and on record how could there be a realistic expectation to achieve the required numbers?

You are also on the mark with your comments about low deer numbers in areas with high incidence of lyme disease. Researching CDC stats can point you to areas in the US with that scenario and also to areas with high deer numbers and low incidence of Lyme disease. It's likely a factor in why the CDC doesn't recommend or endorse deer culls as a means to control lyme disease.

Searches of literature from the Harvard School of Public Health will also point to issues involved with any attempt to control any zoonotic disease.

As your question about hunters and lowering deer numbers was addressed to Scott I'll leave the answering of that to him.

love your comment about how hunting pressure in areas like Quabbin caused the herd to decline. I've seen the same thing in the NW corner of CT and tried to get the DEP to listen to my concerns years ago to no avail.

For me, I don't want the state to allow hunters to take more and more deer because I would rather see the number of deer fit the carrying capacity of the land, not what the general public thinks it should be. I think tags in some areas could be increased, but in others they should be drastically decreased to let the herd recover. (state land NW corner)

The town of Westport has seen a steady decline in Lyme disease with no hunting allowed in town, and they did it through education, not killing a single deer. I'm sure our biased CAES rep is going to point out this is not a scientific fact, but then again his study in Redding didn't provide any scientific facts either, and Westport doesn't support the agenda he's trying to put forth, does it.

Will. Nice to have some sensible dialogue. Thank you. Quite refreshing instead of the normal character assassination attempts I receive on a daily basis. Yes, as Mike pointed out, almost correctly, there are several studies that have shown a positive correlation between deer abundance and blacklegged tick abundance by either significant deer reduction, deer elimination, or deer exclusion. Where Mike is wrong, is where he makes the sweeping statement about Lyme disease. On Monhegan Island, the rat population was able to sustain ticks in very low abundances but there were not enough permanent human residents to definitively show a reduction in Lyme disease. To date, only one paper has shown a positive correlation between deer removals and Lyme disease and that paper was published by Howard, Andy, and Dr. Stafford from right here in CT, Mumford Cove. Why that paper is so pivotal is because it directly links deer to human disease instead of inferring that fewer ticks would lead to less disease in humans: in other words, direct causation.

And yes. The main point of the Redding tick project was to investigate differing combinations of tick control (rodent bait boxes with Frontline, a tick spray on people’s yards, and deer removals) but we used proper scientific method and controls in an attempt to tease out and determine if deer reduction alone was enough to reduce ticks in a non-insular setting. Are we saying that deer are the only factor in Lyme disease transmission cases to humans? Of course not, the ecology of tick-borne diseases is very complex as is detection as you mention, but deer play a major role in the tick life cycle. Guys on this site are incredibly black or white to prove their point that deer play no role. For instance, there is a town here in CT where hunting is prohibited and they are saying that because reported Lyme disease cases have gone down in that town recently, deer are obviously not to blame. Obviously there is more going on.

We chose Redding because we knew that they had an aggressive deer management program and we knew that the politicians would be in full support of the project. We assumed that the people were behind the project too, and most of the local people were, except for the loud minority hunters who blew it up and did everything they could to keep deer densities high for their own recreation. We also assumed that we could get support from residents to sharpshoot their properties and that town staff would facilitate access. For all these reasons, we thought our goal of 8-10 deer/square mile would be achievable. Despite Mike’s quote from Dr. DeNicola in the Newtown Deer Committee meeting minutes (which I would appreciate a link to), there is a wealth of information in the Newtown Deer Committee report which is very professionally done, link included here.

Including; “Dr. DeNicola estimates that the typical impact on deer density from controlled hunts will be minimal, however, and that controlled hunts (whether on public or private land, or a combination) may, at best, be able to reduce deer density to 40-50 d/mi2 if the hunt is very well managed, with 4 baiting sites per mi2 (DeNicola, Appendix A). DeNicola also said that controlled hunts alone could not maintain a deer population to 20-30 d/mi2 if it had been initially reduced to that level by a sharpshooting program (Appendix A). The relatively low typical success of controlled hunts (or recreational hunting) is influenced by the limits imposed by the methods (daytime hunting), the increasing difficulty of locating deer as density decreases, the weapons (mostly bows, firearms on the few properties that are large enough) that can be used legally, and land access limitations.”

And: “Dr. DeNicola estimated that a realistic objective for Newtown may be a deer density of ca. 20-25 d/mi2 . This does not necessarily mean that reaching lower deer densities could not be achieved but rather that there may be inadequate desire or financial resources to achieve that goal. Labor costs increase exponentially below 20-25 d/mi2 because of the increased time required to kill each deer. For example, Dr. DeNicola estimated that the cost of reducing the deer density from 20 to 10 d/mi2 would be double the cost of reducing it from 60 to 20 d/mi2 . The typical deer population densities that have been achieved by sharpshooting programs have been in the range of 25-30 d/mi2 in communities that are typically smaller than 25 mi2 , or less than half the size of Newtown.”

And: “An effective deer reduction program requires equipment, tremendous training to understand the equipment and deer behavior, and ability to manipulate deer. This is a cumulative process. The cost escalates, with a very steep cost curve long term. It is easy for professional sharpshooters to go from 300 d/mi2 to 50 d/mi2 . Below 50 d/mi2 , manpower and expense significantly increase, and continue to increase on a nonlinear curve as deer density decreases. For professional sharpshooters to get from 20 d/mi2 to 10 d/mi2 may cost $200,000, and be double the cost of going from 300 d/mi2 to 50 d/mi2 .”

And : “In Dr. DeNicola’s opinion, in general amateur recreational and controlled hunting is not an effective deer reduction mechanism because of • lack of coordinated team effort (such as used in professional sharpshooting, see above); • too much disturbance by amateurs in a given area; and • ineffective baiting that creates “smart deer”.”

So can sharpshooting or hunting for that matter reduce deer densities to the neighborhood of 10/square mile? The answer is yes even despite shooting setbacks and access. It just takes stubbornness, intelligence, an understanding of deer intelligence and behavior, and money to get there.

the logic of posting the statement below escapes me, but then again I'm not a state employee with no sense of ownership when it comes to other people's money (taxpayers'). Good friend Tony D clearly spells out that the DPSM goal set for the CAES study of 8-10 was NOT attainable without a HUGE expense, more than the CAES had allotted for the culling process. So the study was destined to fail before it even started.

Tony D's quote - "Below 50 d/mi2 , manpower and expense significantly increase, and continue to increase on a nonlinear curve as deer density decreases. For professional sharpshooters to get from 20 d/mi2 to 10 d/mi2 may cost $200,000, and be double the cost of going from 300 d/mi2 to 50 d/mi2 .”

Kindly refer to my first post on Feb 13th with attached link to the Newtown report. Thank-you.

Will,

Link to an article with some significant facts not always shared by the deer-killing proponents.

Figure 5 for example shows Lyme incidence was declining in MC prior to the deer cull.

The was no "control group" to compare the test group against. Any good scientific study always includes controls so that the results in your test group can be compared to it for analysis when the study is completed. Read through the paper and you'll discover no mention is made of a comparable "unhunted control area".

Another problem is instead of tracking Lyme incidence from either the CT Department of Health or the CDC (which would get their statistics from the CT DOH) the study used "self-reporting from residents"; basically asking people for recollections over a 12-year period. Not very scientific.

One reason they may have preferred to use "self-reporting" as opposed to medical or health records may be suggested in the first paragraphy of the Discussion section:

"Based on physician-based reporting where erythema migrans (EM)rash occurred, Garnett et al. (2011) found no significant reduction in physician-based reported cases of Lyme disease in MC following the hunt, although incidence rates declined 45% from before to after hunting was implemented in the community."

Before anyone gets to excited about the closing statement, incidence is a function of occurrence of disease in a given population and can decrease as population increases or increase as population decreases.

For example if you have a population of 100 and 10 cases of a disease the disease incidence is 10%. Now if you increase the number of cases to 12 but your population increases to 150 your incidence rate has declined to 8%.

Scott,

Once again you misrpresent what the argument is; hunters don't see deer and lyme in black and white, this seems to be the function of those hell bent on killing deer to eliminate lyme disease.

Hunters have pointed to the example in Westport as a case in point of where the answer probably isn't as simple as killing deer equates to lower incidence of Lyme disease. Please do try to keep current with the conversation as it will save me many hours or re-typing the same thing. Thank-you.

Lastly Scott, you might find much less proclivity for "character assassination" if you could stick to the facts and statements people actual present or say and not try to twist, convulute or just plain misrepresent them. People tend to be particular about those types of things and take a dim view of habitual offenders of that basic courtesy.

Thanks again and have a good day.

I appreciate your synopsis of Howard's paper, but it went through the peer-review process and was of high quality enough to pass the editorial board's approval process and ultimately be published in the Journal of Medical Entomology. I'm sure that stringent review process would be suitable for CT Bowsite? Oh that's right, the only criteria here are data that support your collective opinion, and disregard any counter to that opinion.

Back to Westport, again. To quote myself to prevent you from retyping: "Are we saying that deer are the only factor in Lyme disease transmission cases to humans? Of course not, the ecology of tick-borne diseases is very complex as is detection as you mention, but deer play a major role in the tick life cycle. Guys on this site are incredibly black or white to prove their point that deer play no role. For instance, there is a town here in CT where hunting is prohibited and they are saying that because reported Lyme disease cases have gone down in that town recently, deer are obviously not to blame. Obviously there is more going on."

Your quote: "Hunters have pointed to the example in Westport as a case in point of where the answer probably isn't as simple as killing deer equates to lower incidence of Lyme disease."

Perhaps you should tone down your verbosity and increase your reading comprehension skills.

someone must have gone to the local bar for lunch??? Your statement (pasted in below) was pretty clear to me. You were saying that us simple folk know that killing deer or not killing deer may or may not have an impact on Lyme disease. But the CAES sees it as black/white - kill deer = less Lyme disease = black/white. You're going to have type slower so others can keep up :)

"Scott,

Once again you misrpresent what the argument is; hunters don't see deer and lyme in black and white, this seems to be the function of those hell bent on killing deer to eliminate lyme disease.

Hunters have pointed to the example in Westport as a case in point of where the answer probably isn't as simple as killing deer equates to lower incidence of Lyme disease. Please do try to keep current with the conversation as it will save me many hours or re-typing the same thing. Thank-you. "

I do appreciate the fact that you consumed far less bandwith than usual to arrive at the wrong answer. Incremental progress, however small is always cause for celebration.

Now I'll highlight where you're still not getting it.

"Guys on this site are incredibly black or white to prove their point that deer play no role. For instance, there is a town here in CT where hunting is prohibited and they are saying that because reported Lyme disease cases have gone down in that town recently, deer are obviously not to blame. Obviously there is more going on."

Now we'll move on to your quoting me and see if you can follow along.

Your quote: "Hunters have pointed to the example in Westport as a case in point of where the answer probably isn't as simple as killing deer equates to lower incidence of Lyme disease."

Saying deer are not to blame (your first quote) and saying it isn't as simple as killing deer equates to lower incidence of lyme disease are not the same thing Scott.

Perhaps you should tone down your verbosity and increase your reading comprehension skills.

Perhaps you should Scott, perhaps you should. After all, it is FCMDMA that consistently leads with killing deer, right? From the homepage of their website under Public Health:

“Reducing deer densities to below 10-12 per sq mile has been shown to substantially reduce tick numbers and human Lyme disease.” Kirby C. Stafford III, Ph.D., Vice Director, Chief Entomologist, Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, New Haven, CT

Now it may be just me but I don't see anything about "the ecology of tick-borne diseases being very complex" in there, do you? I do see reducing deer numbers mentioned quite prominently and unless we've developed a vacation package to Epcot as a deer reduction strategy I'm pretty sure that means killing them.

Thanks again, and have a good day.

thanks for explaining it again. I know this will really help some people understand how the hunting community views ticks, deer and Lyme disease.

I know I stated several times that Westport did it through education by showing people how to landscape their yards and check themselves for ticks, so killing deer is not even mentioned on their website. Definitely a grey area for me, not nearly black and white.

Feels to me like this subject, regrettably, needs some more solid research performed. I say regrettably, because seeing the deer numbers in an area decimated is a real tough sell to me...

My interpretation - though very limited - is that at least a few projects appear to show correlation or perhaps causation between deer numbers and lyme cases in specific situations...

But all of those are in situations that pretty much cause isolation or near isolation of that deer population.

You shift to deer with unlimited roaming ability and there's not much to show positive correlation nor causation between deer and lyme cases.

The only way to suggest it's highly likely that reduced deer numbers in a free roaming group of deer relate to lyme is to test that hypothesis.

The only way to do that, is to wipe out deer in a few areas. It seems this would be best done in a multi center trial where several areas across the whitetail deer's range were obliterated (strong language, but as a guy who likes to see deer as much as he likes to eat them... 10dpsm feels darn close to obliterated so I'm going with it). I mean, if we "prove" in a suburban setting that hugely decreased numbers yields less lyme, that does not mean it would do the same in a more forested area, or an area with milder winters, or an area with additional animal populations etc.

I know with research we have to accept it's limitations and just acknowledge those in our interpretation... This just seems to be a hyper challenging thing to study.

Not a situation I would envy for a researcher, nor folks that hunted near the research area. Stinks for all involved.

And Dr. Stafford's quote is 100% accurate. Deer reduction to those levels has been shown to reduce Lyme disease cases, as in Howard's paper. And you interpret that to mean let's kill all the deer?

What baffles me is the tick-borne disease aspect is a deer hunter's ace in the hole. Nearly all justification for hunting to manage deer uses human health and tick-borne disease reduction to increase opportunity. But here, not only are hunters not meeting that goal, but you are advocating against that. You are arguing against the fact that deer abundance is positively correlated with ticks and tick-borne disease. Let us look no further than Bob Crook's letter advocating for Sunday hunting. Attached. Though he calls it Lyme Decease. Probably best to proofread before submitting testimony to the legislature. This is precisely my point. All these reasons to justify increased hunting opportunity with no follow up, and not only no follow up, but now directly advocating against the justifications mentioned in this testimony. Duh. Seems pretty obvious hunters talk out of both sides of their mouths. It's going to catch up with them shortly. And if deer are not a part of the tick-borne disease cycle, why do we even permit the killing of animals? Are you catching my drift?

The picture I get is this - let's say we reduce deer numbers to the magical numbers of 8-10 but people let brush grow around their yards, don't use any preventative sprays, traps, etc and don't check themselves for ticks after a walk in the woods? Will Lyme disease increase or decrease? And do we then go to killing the bear, moose, coyotes (no cheering please), bobcats, and Fido that could also carry the ticks?

I still don't understand why the CAES is on this site pushing hunters to adopt something that would reduce the enjoyment of their sport instead of spending their time and energy on educating the public about the OTHER preventative measures that have nothing to do with killing deer. Who here thinks they see far too many deer each time out and want less deer available in the areas they hunt?? Who wants to hunt an areas where you rarely see a deer during the season?

To my way of thinking, there are other ways of controlling the outbreak of Lyme disease other than killing the deer. And we already heard that the ability to reduce the herd to the 8-10 numbers is VERY difficult, if not impossible, even with sharpshooters over bait and at night, not to mention the huge spike in cost that occurs the closer you get to the 8-10 number.

I just keep asking myself if the CAES is here to promote HUNTING, or deer eradication to meet some agenda they put forth to the public? I know the answer I get, and they are not pro hunting. Not the hunting I grew up loving!

Again Scott you've gotten it exactly 180 degrees backward; I've pointed out (as have others) numerous times on other threads on this subject about proven success rates in open settings for methods that do not involve killing deer that easily eclipse deer reduction strategies.

Perhaps you should have a quick conference call with Anthony DeNicola because he has stated he would not use tick-borne disease as a rationale for sharpshooting because of the practical difficulties in achieving deer densities or 20 dpsm or lower (see page 3 of attachment). You fellas don't always seem to be on the same page.

You might also find it interesting to note the comments on page 2, the third paragraph beginning with "Lyme disease incidence has not declined to a statistically significant extent and is indeed nominally higher than in the surrounding control area (Groton)."

And Dr. Stafford's quote is 100% accurate. Deer reduction to those levels has been shown to reduce Lyme disease cases, as in Howard's paper.

No Scott, it is not. Now try and focus and read with some comprehension; Dr. Stafford's quote refers to a study outcome in an insular setting and has no applicability in an open setting absent any supporting peer-reviewed literature showing a similar outcome in an open setting. Moreover, it is a deliberate misrepresentation by omission of the other factors involved (which you have been citing lest you forget (conveniently)) in the lyme disease ecology.

It is purposely misleading open communities in FF county on an outcome based solely on one factor in that "complex ecology of Lyme disease."

And you interpret that to mean let's kill all the deer?

No Scott, and again, please try to focus; it is purposely stated as a single factor for the sole intent of misleading a well-intentioned populace that killing deer will lead to lower incidence of Lyme disease. When that statement references the need to address the other factors you will have a leg to stand on; when you, as an advisor to FCMDMA fully inform the public of ALL factors related to lyme disease incidence and control you will have a leg to stand on. Until that time you have no leg to stand on, no basis for lecturing anyone on the subject and certainly no claim to the moral high ground-none.

Seems pretty obvious hunters talk out of both sides of their mouths.

Actually Scott informed hunters have been extremely consistent on this topic. The people talking out of both sides of their mouth on this issue are those that misrepresent the information from the Mumford Cove study. A couple of them work at the CAES and a few at the CT DEEP.

Speaking of talking out of both sides of one's mouth; advocates for hunters speak to and for all hunters and not solely to those they think they can manipulate into agreeing with what their limited perception of what hunting is all about. It seems to perpetually escape your notice that the vast majority of people on this forum have zero interest in what you perceive to be hunting-period. Your vision of hunting was aptly described by the bard; "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing."

And if deer are not a part of the tick-borne disease cycle, why do we even permit the killing of animals?

You either really don't have a clue or you are the most willfully obtuse person I've ever dealt with. It's called hunting Scott and it has never, ever required justification; not for killing ticks, not for preventing Lyme, nada. When hunters allowed themselves to be painted into a corner and to be perceived as nothing more than a management tool they began the slow slide towards obsolescence.

Fortunately the numbers of hunters who recognize that mistaken strategy have dropped it. Thankfully, those numbers, by all appearances continue to grow.

Are you catching my drift?

No one is catching your drift Scott, merely recognizing it for what it truly is; a lot of wind from an uninformed wannabe hunter who hasn't clue 1 about what hunting has been, is today and will continue to be.

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.

Bob, you, Mike and I have been around a few years. We knew that this is just the sort of "Study" that certain people love. They get a grant, get paid to do "vital research", hire some friends who make some nice money, and in the end when the results are worthless, they can't be blamed.

What surprises me is that one of the players either: -Thinks we're not on to him (perhaps he thinks he's too smart for us. or -Is so naive, that he hasn't yet caught on that this is what's going on.

Amusing in a "oh shit they wasted our tax dollars again!" sort of way.

But let's try to make some lemonade here. What have we learned?

Well, for one thing: when the state counts deer, the invisible ones make up half of the population, but when tick doctors count them, they see them all, lots and lots of them.

Another thing we now know is that video cameras render suppressed 5.56mm rifles with night vision scopes, used over bait quite ineffective.

What else?

let's see lemonade, huh?

I learned that Lyme disease can be reduced without killing all of the deer.

I learned that the general public does NOT want to kill animals, but the CAES says that hunters have a great opportunity to kill all of the deer because that's what the public is demanding (not more words, so please don't correct me).

I learned that if there are not enough deer in the study area you can survey outside the study and include those deer in your count.

Deer don't know where the lines are on the map, and it appears that neither does the CAES rep.

You can say less = less Lyme disease because it happened once on an island but never in a setting that impacts towns like Redding (I don't think it's an island, is it? :)

You don't need a purchase when you're doing business with your friends.

You can give your friend any extra money that's left over because it was really hard to do what he said he would do.

Hiring your friend is not a conflict of interest when you work for the CAES.

Hunters are too stupid to understand science, even though some of us have a Phd but refuse to call ourselves Dr.

The future of deer hunting is in killing all of the deer???

Hunters can't reduce the numbers to 8-10 DPSM and neither can the CAES's friend Tony, but let's pay him anyway.

Taxpayers don't give money to the Federal Government, because that's where the grant money came from, so it's not our money.

There's only one company in the entire world who can do an FLIR or read the data from one, and we know that because Davis Air said so.

I'm getting tired, I'm going to stop now.

Well Scott - you're always saying showing me where I lied and here you go. See my other post that will show up shortly. Great Mountain Forest has NEVER in the past 40 years conducted a controlled hunt of any kind to reduce the deer herd. I call BS!

It's really time for you to go away, you're just making an ass out of yourself here.

Groton Long Point, Mumford Cove, Greenwich, Redding, Aquarion Water Company, South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority, Audubon Connecticut, the Nature Conservancy, Metropolitan District Commission, Great Mountain Forest, to name a few.

Dr. Stafford’s statement is 100% accurate: “Reducing deer densities to below 10-12 per sq mile has been shown to substantially reduce tick numbers and human Lyme disease.” Fact. Dr. Kilpatrick, Andy, and Dr. Stafford showed exactly that here in CT. No disputing it. It’s been published. Game over. Again, because there is nothing duplicating that effort in a non-insular setting in the literature, that is what the literature tells us, that reducing deer to 10-12 per square mile reduces ticks and human cases of Lyme disease. Fact. There is no misrepresenting that study. Hunters killed a lot of deer, got densities down, tick numbers dropped substantially, and so did Lyme disease cases. How in the world is that a misrepresentation? That is precisely what happened. The definition of misrepresentation is “the action or offense of giving a false or misleading account of the nature of something.” But “misrepresentation” does not apply when someone presents to you facts that you merely disagree with.

I understand that killing animals is part of hunting. My point is that when the public sees that hunting does nothing for human health and tick-borne disease abatement, and even deer hunters themselves are saying that deer are not a part of the disease equation, then why would the majority non-hunting public tolerate the killing of animals for sport? If that is the case, there is no justification in doing so anymore aside from a few measly license fee dollars going into the General Fund and “tradition”. The public health component, that hunters keep kids’ incidence of tick-borne disease down, is the major selling point for justifying and expanding deer hunting in an urban state like CT. Bob Crook knows it and all you guys do too as I read a lot of your testimonies for Sunday hunting. Lyme and other tick-borne diseases are always in there as a justification for deer reduction. Then you get on this site and tell people to “not blame the deer” and just do tick checks. Again, talking out of both sides of your mouths. This nonsense will catch up with us soon enough.

If you would just tone down the vitriol and think for a minute instead of reacting, you would see I am right. Most guys reading this know I’m right, including you. But it’s guys like you who are loud and misinformed and angry with state government for some reason who are going to torpedo the future of deer hunting for the rest of us.

Sadly the progress you made earlier on limiting use of bandwidth to say nothing of consequence has taken a giant step backwards. Sigh....

The "golden quote" is applicable to each and every town in FF County where FCMDMA peddles their misrepresentations of Mumford Cove; we both know, as does everyone else reading these posts that is my frame of reference when applying that quote, not 2-square miles in Redding. Of course you already knew that which is why we get another serving of utter nonsense.

I do understand your attempt to miscast the point (as referring to the 2 square mile test areas) as viewing it in it's proper context showcases the hypocrisy of the presentation and the lack of ethics in those who would knowingly and deliberately mislead well-intentioned citizens. I'd say shame on you but it's clear that affectation of character isn't vested in you.

Likewise you are purposefully obtuse on my reference to Dr. Stafford's quote; presented in that limited context it is misleading at best and a deliberate misrepresentation at worst. Coupled with the impracticality of achieving necessary deer densities in the 23 communities of FF county (which is known to you and he) it is peddling a lie, pure and simple. In the old west they called such charlatans "snake-oil salesman." Perhaps you and Dr. Stafford were born in the wrong century?

With regard to public perceptions on hunting you are again either woefully ignorant of known facts or you are being deliberately obtuse. Think 10-10-80, as in 10% hunt, 10% are anti-hunting and 80% range from no opinion to recognition of hunting's place in society.

Hunting was in no danger of going the way of the passenger pidgeon before the lyme hysteria and it will remain so long after rationale thought confines it to the dust bin of history.

The greatest threat to hunting is from those who pidgeon-hole it as merely a vehicle to manage a disease when scientific literature abounds with references to non-lethal means with better, sustainable and more cost-effective track records.

Vitriol? Please, I highly doubt you're that thin-skinned or sensitive so kindly drop the pretense of having your tender sensibilities ruffled. While you're not loud (well, to be honest I have no frame of reference on that aspect of you) you are certainly misinformed. I do think you're clearly angry and would attribute that to not being predisposed to handle valid criticisms from those you deem beneath you. I don't know if I'd go so far as to label you a narcissist but you do display some tendencies now and again.

Most of the guys reading this do know who's right and it isn't you Scott, not by a longshot. Most of the guys have seen you for the wolf in sheeps clothing you are and don't buy into your version of hunting. It's guys like the ones posting valid counters who refuse to let YOU torpedo hunting.

Kindly try to post something worth reading next time, will you?

Have a nice day.

How many time has a non-hunter said to you "Sure glad you're killing those deer with the lyme infested deer ticks?" I've had hundreds of conversations with non-hunters over the 46 years of my hunting life-time, and NEVER has one of them even mentioned that they were glad I was killing deer that carry Lyme disease ticks. In fact, most, if not all, didn't have a clue where or how Lyme was contracted, and that's where the problem lies.

Instead of spending time and energy educating the general public that tick control is not difficult or costly, we have a state employee spending his time on a bow hunting site trying to sell his wares like some sideshow carni. And most guys are no longer reading this, his credibility is gone and they see through self serving comments.

And notice he totally ignores the DOCUMENTED lie! Just par for the course.

you and Glen and others are laying out the facts quite nicely, thank you very much. Someone has his skirt in a bunch lately.

I remember last year, when the CAES rep agreed that Mumford Cove was not representative of a non-insular setting and that was what his study would prove. But now he's changing that statement and saying:

"Dr. Kilpatrick, Andy, and Dr. Stafford showed exactly that here in CT. No disputing it. It’s been published."

I hope others on this site are not as ignorant as me and understand what he's REALLY trying say, because all I see are contradictions.

So why was he spending our money on his failed study when his friends at the state already proved the relationship between fewer deer and less Lyme disease? Why come on this site and defend his good friend Tony with WB and Davis, while moving lines on google maps? Why come on a hunting site and demand we agree with a tick study and his demands to have us change our approach to hunting. What's his motivation? WHAT is he trying to justify?

This is what people hear when you post, why can't you understand that?

Funny story for you. Hunting watershed, I think it's easton - Maple st - Wife and I were getting geared up and a local woman is out for a walk. As she passes us, she looks over, and without batting an eye says: "Kill em all, our whole house has had lyme disease".

No kidding. We were shocked!

In fairness That was the only time though. Every other interaction over the years we hunted watershed went from unsure to the lady who practically ran into her house when she saw us and yelled: "I dont like hunters!" after Rosemary said hello (my wife).

Just a funny story to add levity to the conversation.

I kinda stopped paying attention so I may have missed something but I was under the impression that the Kilpatrick, Labonte, Stafford study and subsequent publication proved that there was a direct correlation that deer abundance was directly linked to incidence of Lyme disease in an insular setting. I was also under the impression that the CDC study that took place in Redding was hoping to prove the same thing in a non-insular setting.

Am I wrong??

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.

you are 100% correct, that the previous study was done in an insular setting. However, when Mike pointed out that the CAES was saying that less deer = less Lyme disease at local town meetings to convince the town to allow the WB in to shoot, then the CAES rep said that's a true statement, it's been proven in the papers published by the 3 you mention.

Now the CAES is saying that statement is true and has been approved for publishing by their peer group. So that prompted to me ask "Why did you do the study in Redding if the proof was already there?" The scientific proof was already there, what was to gain?

All this aside - why is the CAES on this site trying to push their propaganda on bow hunters? The logic escapes me. Lies and mis-information don't gain you credibility with the group you're trying to influence.

I've never asked anyone on this site to accept my point of view, I've stuck to stating my opinion and facts I've gathered. Each of us needs to decide which path to follow. I'll take bow hunting, not deer exterminating.

the facts just keep building a clearer and clearer picture of what the CAES is trying to push on this site. And when faced with facts we get the usual flippant answer by saying your experts are a joke, or I apologized to GMF for you (after the CAES lied about GMF). He's not interested in facts or a serious conversation, it's all one sided and self serving.

I love the comments from the independent companies reviewing the film. Makes things pretty clear in my mind and reveals exactly what was going on in Redding, mismanagement of funds and conflicts of interests. "Follow the money" was a comment made early on in this long string of postings, and here's yet another example of how our money was wasted.

sad that the whole family contracted Lyme disease. I wonder if anyone ever provided them with the information on how to avoid Lyme, it's really a simple process. The fact that they got Lyme is why they knew that it was connected to deer, otherwise the general population has no idea of the tick life-cycle or exactly how it's transmitted.

jr - I would love to stop this thread and all of the others around this topic as well. I'd love to talk about getting some coyotes down or shed hunting, or how the herd will look this season. But until the CAES drops from this site or apologizes for the BS they tried to spread, I will continue to expose their lies, half truths, and miss-representations.

My friends and co-workers know one thing about me, and it's that I love a good argument. This one impacts the future of hunting and MY money, so I'm here for the duration,....I', passionate about both.

I believe there was a lot to gain by attempting the same experiment in a non-insular setting. In my mind it is a totally different experiment building on what had already been shown, but that's just the scientist in me coming out.

Whether they went about it properly or not, or for whatever reason, they obviously never got the answers they were seeking to find.

the CAES can't have it both ways. They can't on hand say that the purpose of the Redding study was to prove that less deer equates to less Lyme disease in an non-insular setting, then go to a town meeting in Redding and say it was already proven, but use the insular study to base those comments on. That was a lie, unless Redding became an island and I'm just not aware of it. That's my point.

If it was a valid study, conducted above board, I would say have at it. But the more we learn the more it's clear that lies are being used to justify things, so all credibility is lost with me.

Glen. Right, I’m lying. That’s been my game plan all along. Get my Ph. D., land a scientist job, publish, and then get on a hunting blog and lie about my research. You got me. Lest you forget, we did 4 other aerial helicopter surveys over snow and I counted with my own eyes and fingers and toes lots and lots of deer on the ground. So did Rick Jacobson and Redding’s very own Chris Siburn. Were they lying too? So now the best ammo you and Bob and others have on this site is calling me a liar with no basis or proof? What are we, on the 6th grade recess playground? Liar, liar, pants on fire is all you have now? You’ve got Mike and Bob telling me I am misrepresenting a study when all I am doing is reporting the facts of that study: hunters reduced deer to very low numbers and Lyme disease cases dropped.

Scott, can you give us a heads up on the Power Ball numbers? ... oh wait!

you lied about GMF, that's a fact. Please don't make me cut and paste Jody's reply about how GMF NEVER, repeat NEVER having a hunt to reduce the deer population other hand NORMAL, REGULATED, HUNTING in the past 40+ years. Why? Because there are too few deer in the area. But this is the area you told Bloodtrail was looking for help with too many deer. That my friend is a lie.

Or is it that you just don't know what you're talking about? Did you miss that chpater while studying for your PHD? Where are the deer? To answer that question you need to be in the woods, not some classroom reading about deer hunting.

You apologized to Jody, now apologize to the group on the site for lying. Come on, you can do it. :)

Scotty come out and play with me. Scotty can't come out and play, he's being punished for telling fibs!!

Hi Chris. You are correct I was not on that flight but my technician Mike was on both flights with you and was recording the data on our moving map computer which I have, mapped, and provided in an earlier thread. Even the pilot, who knew what was going on, was surprised at how many deer you were sighting and calling out. I am not digging a hole, you guys are all nutted up is all and have yourselves whipped into a frenzy about nothing. That’s what all the PMs must be about. Bob hammering me now instead of Mike.

Bob, in what world do you live in where hunting does not reduce the deer population? I am quoting you here: “Please don't make me cut and paste Jody's reply about how GMF NEVER, repeat NEVER having a hunt to reduce the deer population.” I should call up Jody and ask how he does that because that is truly amazing. I have hunted and released hundreds of deer back when I was darting in the Gaillard property in North Branford. I know Jody and his boys dart with lead and they release their deer to the freezer. Oh, and also show me where I said GMF hired sharpshooters.

I can almost picture a little kid holding his breath while insisting he's right and the whole world is wrong.....seriously.

Scott,

This is really, really, really simple.

1. Mumford Cove showed a drop-off in lyme disease incidence via a significant reduction in whitetail deer.

2. Mumford Cove as an insular setting and as I noted in the Minority Dissenting report incidence of lyme disease had crept up to be slightly higher than the surrounding control area (Groton). This report was signed off on by two MD's and one PhD. I would expect the two MD's might know a bit more about zoonotic diseases than you do.

3. Hunters on this site have been against and will remain against the results of MC being cast as a cure-all for any open community. That is exactly how it is being misrepresented in the flyer the FCMDMA hands out, presentations when called into town meetings and to which you and Kirby Stafford serve as "advisors" (Ministers of Propaganda would be truth in advertising by the way). I have again attached the link so everyone can verify what I've just said.

4. The CAES ITM study was attempting to test the deer/lyme relationship in an open setting. It failed-spectacularly and for some painfully obvious reasons to all but the agenda-driven scientist crowd.

A. In an open setting you have zero control over other potential hosts for the blacklegged tick. Many of these potential hosts are known to dwell in Redding.

B. In an open setting it is never going to be economically viable to use sharpshooting to get deer densities to the levels required per the MC study. Even Anthony DeNicola recognizes this fact. FYI Scott, if you check the minority report there was a very interesting extrapolation on the time and manpower requirements to achieve comparable results to the MC study in a town of Newtown's size.

C. In an open setting you have no way to control your deer population. When cornered on moving lines on a map your first defense is "deer have a brain, legs and move", remember. Well they do indeed and it's impossible, absent tranquilizing the population at the onset of the study, fitting them with radio collars to confirm their locations at all times (to verify start and end point counts) or enclosing the area to prevent influx or exodus of deer.

Of course I'm sure you knew this but it wasn't about science it was about propagation of a myth designed to scratch one man's pathological hatred of deer and keep a few others in their cups on the taxpayer's dime.

Nice sham until you got caught which was ridiculously easy once people actually began to pay attention to the details.

Oh, and for a guy who ridiculed Vison Air for "speed racing" you might want to finally review the film Davis did and check the speeds he was flying at.

Vision Air tops out at approximately 60 knots or 70mph. Davis flies at close to that range but also at 72-88knots (or 82-101 mph). Of course you'd know that if you reviewed the film you've posted as being from the very best and beyond reproach.

Sadly I'm quite confident you'll continue to flail about like a blind man trying to hit a pinata to defend the indefensible. By all means feel free to do so, just don't mind the chuckles in the background.

Have a sparkling day.

when the facts get in your way you resort to picking apart the words in a vane attempt to change the subject and divert attention from the hand moving the shells.

Your party line has been the same for last 2 years - hunters need to kill all the deer to reduce the herd to the magical 8-10 dpsm, the general public was demanding it. Now follow me here, because this is where you're getting confused. Bloodtrail asked you to name some towns in CT where the deer are falling out of the trees, and you said GMF, among others, was one of those areas.

So I asked GMF if they every conducted such a hunt, either with hunters or sharpshooters. YOU NEVER SAID GMF USED SHARPSHOOTERS!!! I ASKED JODY IF THEY DID JUST TO MAKE SURE I DIDN'T OMIT THAT OPTION!

Sorry for shouting, but I wanted to make sure you heard the message and didn't get confused by the words. The question was about an area in the state where a hunt of any type was needed that would be used to eradicate an over abundant deer herd and I contacted GMF because YOU told Bloodtrail that was one of the area that was looking to eradicate their huge deer herd. Come on Doc, I already explained this twice, I would think you're starting to understand it by now.

I want to help you understand your other question. Hunting can be used to manage a deer herd at sustained levels, increased levels or decreasing levels depending upon how many deer allowed to be harvested and how many fawns are born each spring. Take few deer, the herd will increase over time. Take a lot of deer and the herd will decrease over time. Get it? I'll use smaller words if you're still confused. I really want to help if I can.

So here's the Reader's Digest version to make a lot simpler.

Bloodtrail said - show me where there's lots of deer to kill.

CAES guy - GMF (others too)

GMF - we have no deer, who the hell said that?

CASES guy - Bob lied about Jody??? (even I don't understand that comment, but hey, that's what he said)

There you go.

Chaz - our CAES rep didn't issue the purchase orders and knows nothing about the purchasing process, he didn't know how to read Google maps or draw lines, he doesn't know how to interrupt the FLIR films, he's not sure why they flew outside of the survey area, and he wasn't on the flight with Rooster so he doesn't know what they saw. So how in the hell does he have all the answers? He keeps telling us how he wasn't there, or he didn't do this/that, or I don't know anything about that part of the process, but here he is telling us hunters how ignorant we all are.

I'm going back to the hot tub with a nice glass of vino russo (that's red wine for the Phds in the crowd) from the Campagna region of Italy (that's the area around Naples, again for the Phds so they keep up). Salute!

Speed racer Vision Air covers a square mile in 4 minutes with a forward-looking camera which Is great for non-forested areas out west like Idaho where she is based. Davis uses a camera looking straight down in forested landscapes and covers a square mile in about a half an hour. Which technique do you think is likely to detect more deer? A grade school student could answer that question.

Bob. You are right. I never said GMF used sharpshooters. You did. They have an active deer management program, both for recreation and regeneration as it is a working, managed forest. And when they kill a deer, they have reduced the population by exactly one deer. Do you understand how that works? In other terms, if they kill 5 deer, they have reduced the population by exactly 5 deer. Make sense?

"Which technique do you think is more likely to detect more deer? A grade school student could answer that question."

Which makes you're using the wrong guy all the more amazing Scott. Just ask the experts.........We did.

Let's look at a different example. When I put the chart plotter transducer on my boat, why do i orient it straight down? Why not at a 45 degree forward-looking angle? Because you get better results with a straight down orientation.

independent, professionals review the film and our CAES rep discounts all of their comments, even though he admits to having absolutely no knowledge of how to read the films. Professionals say Davis Air equipment is outdated and produces poor quality, but our CAES FLIR amateur says Davis has the best equipment. Is it wonder he thinks he's on boat? Sad to watch the mental decline of another person. Wonder if he's off his meds?

Several years ago, if you remember, a group of us gathered at the Town Hall in Redding. This meeting was to discuss the ITM-CDC Study and was billed as a chance for the CAES to outline in definitive terms the locations, goals and structure of your study. Your behavior in that meeting mirrors your deceptive, dismissive and quite frankly the “F#$$^ You” attitude you continue to display here.

Your study and you are a failure. Not because of the hunters but because of your inability to follow a set scientific plan and report the truth, whether or not it supported your hypothesis. Ever changing boundaries and deer numbers that change like the wind are only a few text book examples of your agenda driven science. You and the study apparently have no controls. Had you followed this simple path as a scientists rather than a politician your work may have been a little more believable. Man Up and cut your losses!

Lets look at the facts on this survey.........There were four areas surveyed, Limekiln (1.231 square mile / 10 transects), Pheasant Ridge (1.231 square miles / 10 transects), Drummer (1.107 square miles / 9 transects) and John Reed (.984 square miles / 8 transects); which equal 4.553 square mile total. In your report the CAES stated that it was 3.8 square miles.

Original Pheasant Ridge test area was expanded to the east by 1500+ feet. Once again we see that Dr. Williams has manipulated the test area and data.

If we take the 42 deer seen on the survey and divide by the square miles covered (4.553), we get the deer per square mile figure of 9.22 dpsm.

That said, I'm basing that on the little snapshot's you all are presenting not on having fully reviewed the published papers. I'm going to need to do that, I've been sucked into these threads like a teen girl watching the Kardashians...

Smoothdraw. I'm happy to fly with any of these guys. They can even pick the areas to fly. But which one of the 4 of us is going to fly the chopper? A Robbie 44 has only 4 seats and costs $600/hour. It's piston-driven which keeps cost down believe it or not. For 5 guys to go up we would have to use something like a Bell 505 jet ranger chopper that's more like $1000/hour.

If the 4 of us went up in the chopper only 3 would come down.

I could care less how many deer are in Redding, remember? I just want my money back from failed tick study.

Question regarding the stats. Technically speaking, studies can not prove or disprove anything correct, they just suggest the strength of probability (may not be the correct terms). For example, a study yielding a data set with a great P value would suggest a given likelihood more than a study with a bad P value. (very simplified example for clarity sake).

So, it's hard for a study (whether you agree with it or not) to be a failure or a success, because you go into it knowing it's going to yield an answer along a continuum.

Correct?

You are right about the stats. You are not really proving A works or B works better, but rather trying to prove that the results from either A or B are different than a random chance event. That is to say that your P value is the probability that your data set is different than chance. Typically we say that significant differences exist with a P value of 0.05 or lower. Meaning, if P = 0.05, there is a 5% chance that your results could have occurred as a random event, which is pretty unlikely. On the flip side, a P = 0.87 would indicate that the results you achieved with your methodology had an 87% chance of occurring anyway randomly. Make sense?

Guys on this site might be surprised with the results we are seeing with the tick study, but we are not ready to release those numbers yet. In the process of data analysis now. Only partially analyzed.

Good deal, that's what I was getting at but in clumsy fashion. Thankfully I've never been part of a study the yielded a P = .87... Oooph! It's been 15 years though since I did clinical work (sport science - playing with various supplements, nutrition registries, etc) so I'm rusty...

Seems that generalizations are the need when dealing with behavioral sciences - be it human or nonhuman. Things that think can and will do what you don't ask or expect.

Thanks! Will