Contributors to this thread:
CDC ITM STUDY - CAES FINAL REPORT
In a nutshell 5 years, 87 deer and $1M have failed to provide a definitive correlation between deer populations and Lyme disease.
Dr. Scott Williams, of the CAES (Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station) " We needed to get deer densities to 10-12/square mile on the test sites in order to test the hypothesis that reductions of deer to those levels in an inland setting would reduce tick densities and tick-borne disease."
In March 2013 Interim Progress Report for the CDC ITM study states, " a target deer density below 10 animals per square mile was achieved ", page 17 part B).
On January 9, 2014 (CT DEEP Forum, Putnam Park) Dr. Scott Williams states that the deer numbers were now 30+ deer per square mile in both 1 square mile test sites.
On January 24, 2014 CAES aerial survey data was published and shows that deer numbers had increased to 35+ deer per square mile in both test sites.
On February 11, 2014 CAES aerial survey data was published and later stated by Dr. Scott Williams that deer numbers had increased to 45 deer per square mile in test site.
It would seem a mystery or even magic, that deer exponentially increased in numbers in these two 1 square mile areas in such a short time. The CAES stated in their original ITM proposal, " we do not necessarily expect immediate ingress of deer into treatment areas as deer typically do not shift established home ranges into areas of lower density (105b, 105c) or even to accommodate temporary bait sites (105d, 105e) ". Like all magic there’s a deception. In this case the manipulation of data to include population multipliers and increased survey areas, what Dr. Scott Williams calls; loose or elastic test site boundaries.
Fast forward to 2015:
On 1/11/15 - A privately funded FLIR deer survey was conducted, the data provided by Vision Air was 7 deer on the 1 square mile White Birch test site and 9 deer on the 1 square mile Pheasant Ridge test site.
On 1/15/15 - Four days later the CAES ITM study IR deer survey was conducted, the reported data provided by Davis Aviation and CAES reported, 44 deer on the 1 square mile White Birch test site and 47 deer on the 1 square mile Pheasant Ridge test site.
The CAES/Davis Aviation films/disks of the IR survey were later obtained through FOIA and reviewed by two independent companies for their accuracy. The two companies acknowledged the same number of targets for each test site; both White Birch and Pheasant Ridge test sites had 9 targets.
On 1/16/2015 - One day after the CAES IR survey White Buffalo started to cull an additional 11 deer, leaving less than the 10-12/ density sought by the CAES for the ITM study.
In March of 2015 - The CAES surveyed the two test site areas and stated the Pheasant Ridge test site increased to 51 (after WB removed 6) and the White Birch test site had increased to 16 (after WB removed 5). The CAES also stated that the study was terminated due to local opposition.
Dr. Scott Williams of the CAES has done exactly what he said he would do in the ITM test study proposal Williams states, " we will incorporate established and novel components that will enhance the outputs and outcomes of the project. “ What he really should have said was that we will manipulate the facts and the protocols for the CDC ITM study to promote ourselves and the pre-determined outcome of the study.
Readers of the Report should note pages - 4, 5, 6, 23... were the CAES states that regular hunting can not achieve deer populations under 44 dpsm (17 km2) and page 28 were the CAES states that deer had increased to 51 in Pheasant Ridge by March 2015. A population increase of 409% in just over one year after WB had removed 6 from the same test site; which had shown 9 on the CAES IR from 1/15/2015, leaving just 3 deer in the test site.
10:02. This was a tick study with a deer component, not a deer study. Read the paper we wrote if you want to better understand. Having trouble with the link. You'll have to copy and paste from here:
Glen, want me to post the final report?
CAES - Record of the Year 2013-2014 / page - 98 of text
"Aerial deer surveys were also conducted in 2013 and 2014 by Dr. Williams, which found that the average deer density in Redding was ca. 30 deer per square mile. The deer densities post-harvest in 2013 were < 10 deer per square mile in both study neighborhoods and < 10 per square mile in one of two neighborhoods in 2014. Deer populations decreased by 28% in areas between 2013 and 2014 where population management was done. Deer populations increased over that same time period by 21% in areas where no population management occurred. Effectiveness of deer population management and natural product application treatments, both alone and in combination on tick populations and disease parameters will be estimated in the final project year. This project is funded by a cooperative agreement (i.e., grant) from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the period from 2012 through 2015."
Doc - If you finished with 10 in the test sites in 2013 and it decreased by 28% 2014, that would leave you with 7 in your test areas. If it wasn’t about just killing deer why go below your target of 10. Further it looks as though WB taking 11 more in 2015 would leave you and your study deficient in deer and puts your control data below your target thereby negating the value of your study data.
Doc, Yes....... please post the entire 86 page pdf file - ITM Termination Report.
10:07. “Deer populations decreased by 28% in areas between 2013 and 2014…” not in 2014 as you are trying to imply. Yes, 11 deer were taken in 2015, on the two study areas, 5 on one and 6 on the other. While we were unable to achieve densities low enough to impact tick abundances on those 2 research areas based on our aerial surveys, if we had in fact gone below target densities, that certainly wouldn’t have negated the value of the study, it would have been hugely beneficial to it, from a tick management perspective. This was about tick management and public health, not a deer study like you have been trying to turn it into all these years. From a public health and research study perspective, 0.0 deer/square mile on the two study areas would have been ideal. To suggest we went too low is preposterous given our aerial survey data and continued triple digit hunter take in Redding all these years.
Email me the final report and I will post it on my lunch break.
Here is another paper we wrote using data from Redding. Basically the theory goes that intact forestland harbors a greater diversity of wildlife and if ticks are feeding on those hosts, there should be a lower percentage of ticks infected with pathogens. And that fragmented residential habitats would have less diversity and presumably more infected ticks. But we were just not seeing this. Given the mature nature of Connecticut’s forests, we were seeing more wildlife and more diversity in residential areas where there is far more habitat diversity than in large blocks of forest. I think any hunter in CT would agree, especially guys who hunt Aquarion/Centennial lands, Regional Water Authority, MDC, State forests, etc. You see less wildlife and less diversity in large forest blocks than you see in backyards. Anyway, we were able to show that backyards in Redding had far more wildlife diversity and abundance than CT forests and we were also able to show that there were more ticks/mouse in forested habitats and way more mice were infected with Lyme disease in forest settings than residential. This flies counter to the old argument and gives a public health argument and scientific justification for managing mature forests to increase wildlife diversity and abundance.
Here's the final report.
Here's the final report.
beating a dead horse people.....
Seriously. But the study did just officially terminate this past fall. I know Glen isn't going to find anything which is why I'm happy to post the final report. Just because guys didn't like the study doesn't mean we did anything we shouldn't have.
Doc. “Seriously. But the study did just officially terminate this past fall. I know Glen isn't going to find anything which is why I'm happy to post the final report. Just because guys didn't like the study doesn't mean we did anything we shouldn't have.”
Like White Buffalo shooting from a motor vehicle, CT DEEP - Authorization 1315006, Item 12 - “Takings shall not occur from a motor vehicle” X16.
Doc - We can get to the manipulation of your deer surveys and numbers later.
CT DEEP Authorization 1315006, Item #12 - "Taking shall not occur from a motor vehicle."
That's clever Glen. Posting an image from the internet as your "evidence." Good one!
None of the lies by the CAES, the DEEP and police should surprise anyone. Just look at what is happening in any of the government sectors and you should know by now that this common place. And to deflect the attention FROM an eye witness sworn statement to a photo is just more evidence of what Hillary was saying "What difference does it make?" Very sad that these people work for us!!
12:06. One "sworn eye witness statement" is notarized, meaning the notary documented the identify of the person who signed, but that doesn't verify the content of the statement. The other is someone's post on Bowsite. And the image was taken from the Internet and posted here. No proof and not credible. Again, I was not there and have yet to be shown proof, and law enforcement was made aware and didn't pursue this due to lack of proof. Plus this was 5 years ago!
Correct that a notary only identified the person making the statement. In this case it looks like the sworn statement was made to the police.
I could be wrong but I believe it is crime to lie in a sworn statement made to the police or to file a false police report, so such a statement is intended to be true.
Doc - The first sworn statement is from a Wilton Police officer, John F Godfrey. I have also posted the sworn statement of the property owner Rick Jaccarino (Redding police report) both of these individuals live on the property and witnessed White Buffalo shooting from their truck. The CT DEEP changed sworn witness testimony about White Buffalo shooting from their truck on case file # C141220 and made it go away; and is the reason they will not provide the original witness statement through FOIA. Doc you are right about one thing ....... You were not there !
Don’t know why we are re-hashing this. By your own account, it was 5 years ago, 2013. Law enforcement was made aware and nothing came of it. Just like nothing came of complaints about not calling neighbors, not using tree stands, deer in Topstone Park, outside the study boundary, etc.
To clear things up on your broad statements about deer densities. We counted deer on 15 February 2013 with one experienced and one rookie observer and counted a corrected approximately 30 deer/square mile in the two take areas, likely a low estimate.
“In March 2013 Interim Progress Report for the CDC ITM study states, " a target deer density below 10 animals per square mile was achieved ", page 17 part B).” ------ 51 deer were removed that year, so in his March 2013 interim report, based on that math (60 deer counted – 51 deer removed), Dr. Stafford assumed we were at goal densities.
“On January 9, 2014 (CT DEEP Forum, Putnam Park) Dr. Scott Williams states that the deer numbers were now 30+ deer per square mile in both 1 square mile test sites.” ------ Now I would not have said that there were 30 deer/square mile in those two areas at that meeting because we had not flown yet in 2014. I probably did say Redding density was closer to 30 deer/sm than the 60 deer/square mile DEEP had been reporting before that. I think we can all agree on that. This was based on our 2013 flights that included the two study areas where we did not remove deer.
“On January 24, 2014 CAES aerial survey data was published and shows that deer numbers had increased to 35+ deer per square mile in both test sites.” ------ Almost. We determined there were 38 deer/sm in the Pheasant study area and 19/sm in the White Birch area for an average of 28.5/sm not 35+ as you claim. See: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322644192_Redding_Aerial_Deer_Survey_2014
“On February 11, 2014 CAES aerial survey data was published and later stated by Dr. Scott Williams that deer numbers had increased to 45 deer per square mile in test site.” ----- Yes. Chris Siburn got a free ride in a helicopter on the taxpayer dime and helped Wildlife Division Director Rick Jacobson count 45 deer/square mile in the Pheasant Ridge area, up a bit from a few weeks prior, but basically the same abundance. I wasn’t even in the chopper. See here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292143723_CAESDEEPChris_Siburn_Joint_Aerial_Deer_Survey_Redding_CT_2014
“On 1/11/15 - A privately funded FLIR deer survey was conducted, the data provided by Vision Air was 7 deer on the 1 square mile White Birch test site and 9 deer on the 1 square mile Pheasant Ridge test site.” ----- Almost. Your contractor blew over the 32 square miles of town in 3.5 hours, or 6.5 minutes/square mile. It takes us 60 minutes to survey each square mile. What technique do you think misses more deer? If you multiply her numbers by 4, as I have said routinely she detects 25% of deer, you get 28 deer/sm in White Birch and 36 deer/sm in Pheasant Ridge, similar in abundance and distribution to our results.
“On 1/15/15 - Four days later the CAES ITM study FLIR deer survey was conducted, the reported data provided by Davis Aviation and CAES reported, 44 deer on the 1 square mile White Birch test site and 47 deer on the 1 square mile Pheasant Ridge test site.” ----- Yup. As required by the DEEP permit before we could commence removing deer. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271828133_CAES_Redding_CT_Aerial_Infrared_Deer_Survey_Results_2015
“On 1/16/2015 - One day after the CAES FLIR survey White Buffalo started to cull an additional 11 deer, leaving less than the 10-12/ density sought by the CAES for the ITM study.” ------ According to your numbers, not ours. And again, 0.0 deer/square mile would have been ideal for the study. Not that we came even close, but going below the 10-12 goal would never “negate the study.” It would have been ideal from a tick management perspective.
“In March of 2015 - The CAES surveyed the two test site areas and stated the Pheasant Ridge test site increased to 51 (after WB removed 6) and the White Birch test site had increased to 16 (after WB removed 5). The CAES also stated that the study was terminated due to local opposition.” ----- Almost. We added the 6 WB had taken back into the Pheasant area to come up with the 51 deer/sm. We did not report 57/sm. White Birch was up to 16/sm after we added the 5 that WB had taken back in. And, we didn’t terminate the study “due to local opposition,” we terminated the deer removal portion of the study. Again, this was a tick management study, not a deer study like you guys have been insisting this whole time. We trapped mice and treated and collected ticks all spring and summer 2015 and again in spring/summer 2016. No, the ITM study was not terminated until November 2017, but the deer removal aspect was terminated in 2015. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273131922_CAES_Redding_CT_Aerial_Helicopter_Deer_Survey_Results_2015
Yes, we did not expect these results. We removed 48 deer from the Pheasant Ridge area over three years and not only could we not detect a decline, we actually counted more deer on those transects in each year of the study. In 2013 we counted a corrected 30 deer/sm and removed 31. In 2014 we counted a corrected 38 deer/sm and removed 11. And in 2015 we counted a corrected 51 deer/sm and removed 6. So this either goes to show the limitations of aerial surveys, the fact that they are an hour snapshot of where the deer are right then, or that there were boatloads of deer in the area that could easily handle that additional mortality. Again, we counted deer and reported what we saw. Deer have legs and a brain and were unaware of our survey boundaries. They were where they were based on their needs the 4 days we looked for them over three years.
But if you average the data for deer removal (Pheasant and White Birch) and no deer removal (Drummer and Blueberry) areas for each year, you see there were 2.5 deer/square mile fewer in deer removal areas in 2013 and 10/square mile fewer each in 2014 and 2015. So basically, WB needed to have taken more than twice as many deer as they did to reach target densities.
Doc - You’re wrong about noting happening in regards to White Buffalo shooting 16 deer from their truck. What happened was that we all learned the extent a State agency (CT DEEP) would go to break State law and manipulate data on a DEEP incident report; after the (EEP Division Director) stated at Putnam Park, that if WB broke any of the DEEP authorization rules they were out.
Must have been a coincidence that the CDC ITM Grant was applied for directly following the Town of Redding, CT. adopting a 10-12 dpsm target and approving controlled hunting in Topstone, the (ITM) White Birch Test Site area on the advice and request of Dave Streit who suggested grant money was available if they collected tick data at the same time..... Dave and the Fairfield County Deer Management Alliance acted as the intro team for CAES, Kirby Stafford and Scott Williams.......But it was never about deer - just ticks ?
As to your survey numbers, very interesting use of 4X on your IR survey data; a reader only has to divide by 4 to find the actual numbers. I`ll get back to you later with a more in-depth response, in the mean time try watching the Davis Aviation IR films.
Starting to feel like we need professional mediation for you guys...
Airrow - I think most guys on this site realize that the DEEP, along with CAES and the town police let things slide and swept evidence under the rug for their own benefit; mostly to prevent legal action and embarrassment to the state, and all of this was done at the taxpayers expense.
I appreciate the information you provided and I think it sheds light on how our own state and local officials make their own rules and screw the taxpayers their supposed to serve. There's no doubt in my mind that this situation STINKS! I'm not sure the CAES or the DEEP are going to give you any satisfaction, but at least you provided some educational guidance for the rest of us, thanks for that!
And someone needs to explain how this was not about killing deer, but was about ticks. If the purpose was to see if lower deer numbers resulted in fewer ticks and reduced lyme disease, then why were they killing the deer? Why not study an area with few deer, like the NW corner, and compare to other areas with lots of deer, like FF county?? I know,............. there's no money in that, is there?
Bob, now that you are retired I think that you should start a company. Call it 'White Lice', you can specialize in Insect and Arachnid neutering. You'll apply for grants to do studies to see if performing vasectomies on male Deer Ticks will reduce their population. You'll ear-tag them of course since we can't have you recapturing the same ticks (what a waste of time and taxpayer money that would be). Just to keep things honest you should snap a picture of each tick that you capture and tranquilize both before and after the surgery. Since the male ticks won't know that they are shooting blanks they will still mate with the female ticks, and in fact I would imagine that the nuetered males might mate preferentially if you use attractive Tick Ear Tags (purchased ((with a no bid contract)) from your friend Notme, who just started a company called Bug Ears which sells all sorts of insect and bug jewelry and ear tags and such).
Did I mention that I recently patented a teeny tiny little tranquilizer gun?
We applied for the grant on our own terms. When we learned we were awarded the grant, we sought a town that was being active in tick and tick-borne disease management. And that town was Redding. The Town of Redding deer management program was created as a means to reduce ticks and tick-borne disease in town, not for increased hunting opportunity though that was a side effect. And that is the goal of the Fairfield County Deer Management Alliance as well, tick and disease abatement.
Let us look at your contractor’s work. In her 2015 FLIR survey you paid for, she detected 234 deer on Redding’s 32 square miles. That is 7.3 detected deer/square mile. Multiple that by 4 and you get 30 deer/square mile which is in line with our surveys, DEEP’s, and Davis Aviation raw uncorrected numbers.
Let us now look at her performance on Staten Island. In 2016 she detected 527 deer (http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/07/staten_island_deer_count_2016.html). That same year, WB sterilized 720 bucks and estimated the herd was between 1918 – 2188 deer (http://www.silive.com/news/2017/04/staten_island_deer_herd_size.html). If we take her 527 deer detected and multiply that by 4, we get 2,108. Right in the middle of WB range estimate. But it makes more sense that WB is lying about the number of deer they sterilized and were throwing numbered ear tags in the trash, right? If that is the case, why is NYC no longer using her services?
Bob. I have said this soooo many times. There were three treatments in this tick management study. One was deer removal, another was a fungal spray on people’s yards, and the third was fipronil-based rodent bait boxes placed on property perimeters. The point of the study was to find a less toxic combination to kill ticks. The deer component was to see if deer removal alone, or in combination with the other two treatments could successfully reduce ticks and disease in an inland setting. We also had a neighborhood that had no treatment and another that had just the spray and the bait boxes. Guess which treatment combination did best? As to your concern about research in the NW part of the state, Dr. Stafford and his crew did a 5-year study in Cornwall and Falls Village testing the effectiveness of the fipronil rodent bait boxes to control ticks back in the early 2000s, but because it did not have a deer component, you probably never even knew about it. And there was money in that. It was another CDC-funded grant I think. Are you suggesting the government only funds research that includes the killing of deer?
You're rambling Doc. You've stated several times that reduced deer = reduced lyme disease and others have argued that it has never been scientifically proven in a non-insular setting. Remember those arguments with Mike and others?? If Redding wanted to reduce lyme disease as you stated why didn't you and/or other government agencies tell them to (1) check themselves for ticks after being in the woods or just the backyard, (2) wear long pants and sleeves (3) remove vegetation from their property that promotes ticks, (4) spray their property and (5) educate themselves and not kill the deer? Like I always say, follow the money and it will lead you to the answer, and in this case it's WB.
Let's say your study PROVED beyond a shadow of a doubt that killing all of the deer in Redding eliminated lyme disease,........then what? How do accomplish that in all of CT and at what cost? What about NY, MA and RI? If they don't follow suit and the deer return to CT. Staten Island can't keep it's deer population in check and that's an island with millions of people. So why spend my money on a waste of time?
How about you take that money and give it to someone who can find a cure for lyme that's safe, quick and easily administered? Like taking at aspirin for headache. I can only suggest that you find a forum for bug people like yourself and leave this site to the bow hunters.
My apologies to others on the site who are tired of the rehash of the rehash of the rehash, etc, etc.
Bob. Geez. Our study was to test different combinations to control ticks in a residential setting. We chose Redding because on top of the preventative measures you mention, they were active beyond that. The point of the study was to test the effectiveness of the treatment combinations in whatever town. It didn't matter which town, but it turns out the Redding people benefited. The purpose wasn't to save Redding.
And so you are aware, there is a cure for Lyme disease. It's an antibiotic. Usually doxycycline. Which is "safe, quick and easily administered." Kinda like taking aspirin. Buh.
Antibiotics for Lyme disease is most effective if treated early. The cure is not 100% for all manifestations of the disease.
"When we learned we were awarded the grant, we sought a town that was being active in tick and tick-borne disease management. And that town was Redding. The Town of Redding deer management program was created as a means to reduce ticks and tick-borne disease in town, not for increased hunting opportunity though that was a side effect. "
Nope. Deforestation and car accidents.
Bob - that last post got me curious. Do you see value in federal/state funded research? Not trying to be a jerk. It gets cloudy given the debate on this specific topic get's pretty colorful on all angles :).
White Birch test area and the shooting areas (6) around Top Stone Park.
White Birch test area and the shooting areas (6) around Top Stone Park.
Doc - Dave Streit, President of FCMDMA (Fairfield County Municipal Deer Management Alliance) has the Town of Redding,CT. lobby for grant money to kill deer in Topstone Park, Redding, CT. by adding a Tick Study. Both Dr. Stafford and Dr. Williams of the CAES are both on the advisory board of the FCMDMA and became the lead investigators of the CDC ITM study. The main test site on the CDC ITM study just happens to be White Birch which touches Topstone Park were 39 deer were killed from (6) different locations around the Park and you still want to call the ITM study just a Tick study randomly selected ? Most of the 39 deer (over three years) were culled outside of the White Birch test area around Topstone Park. The FCMDMA stated that only (2) deer remained in Topstone Park in 2015.
Dr. Williams's Link
Dude? What?! Are you suggesting this was a massive conspiracy to kill deer in Topstone Park? What? Why? If so, why didn't we have permission to use the park for deer removals? "Six different locations around the Park?" Seriously? Six? Dave Streit? Are we seriously down this rabbit hole now? Wow. Just wow.
Bob can't even find Redding on the map of CT. Not sure why Topstone Park is such a big deal. In the link provided, you can see all the other town-owned areas that have been opened up to bowhunting which does not include the state-owned Huntington State Park.
Dr. Kirby Stafford and Dr. Scott Williams are both considered CDC Grantees in the fact that they applied for and received in excess of $900,000 for a Grant. If they are regulated by the following restrictions why were they involved with the Fairfield County Deer Management Alliance in presenting materials relating deer management as a method to reduce tick borne diseases, while simultaneously influencing public policies, with DEEP, to adopt target deer density of 10-12 DPSM into Town Plans. This was done utilizing fear mongering as it did not include an objective, balanced presentation of evidence. Town Plans typically require legislative or executive action by the Board of Selectmen. Surely Doc thinks he was allowed to do this as a public service as it involved promotion of public health and safety. However when he skewed population data to support the mission of FCDMA and presented it publicly with the intent to influence policy, he participated in CDC Grantee restricted activities.
This is awesome. More popcorn please! Let see how much more we can beat this dead horse!
Doc - You are actually telling everybody that Redding was not your Town of choice for the study. That the letters from Streit, Scholl, Redding First Selectman and more written 2-3 weeks before and submitted along with your grant request was just a coincidence?
And the horse is still dead
"Our Health Department is eager to work with you and the CDC to identify the best locations for the proposed Integrated tick management study."
Will - I'm not against ALL government grants for research, but just google the topic and look at some of the other stupid grants given for things like (1) researching the use of drugs on the mating habits of quail, or researching public opinion of politician who don't have a firm stance on an issue. We waste so much money on these things.
Doc - undiagnosed and untreated lyme is never cured 100% if treatment is started too late, so you must have missed that class when getting your Phd, I didn't.
Redding is right next to Greening and Bluing, I think? When Airrow provides facts you provide tap dancing, you're way too obvious with your responses. Remember,....just say - "What difference does it make!?" (Hillary Clinton).
And yes, I know you were doing other things beside killing deer in Redding, but MY point was that you have stated several times that less deer = less lyme. So what was the result of killing the deer in Redding? Is the town now free of lyme? Oh wait, didn't you say there are more deer in Redding now, so the money was wasted. Your study was a failure on so many levels. WB couldn't kill the deer that you wanted killed. No reduced lyme disease. More deer = more car accidents. The kids can't walk outside now! Sad, very sad.
Thanks for jogging my memory Glen. You are right. We chose Redding during the grant writing process. As you can see from those 4 letters of support you posted, that was 7 years ago. My youngest was still in diapers in 2011. You seem to be grasping at straws here. What do minutes from a Redding Selectman’s meeting from 2011 about hunting in Topstone Park have to do with anything we are discussing here? Dave Streit? We haven’t talked about that guy in years. Lobbying? Are you suggesting that letters of support for the grant proposal from local entities and the Town constitute lobbying? “Influencing public policy?” I don’t think so. Town plans? This was a study that took place in Redding with support from the First Selectman and the Health Director. We applied for the grant in 2011 and it was just terminated in November 2017. It’s over. Old news. I guess we are all wondering what it is you are trying to accomplish here. Keep it coming though. I can keep beating this dead horse as long as you want to. Are you going to continue posting documents from the grant application? What about the support letter from Hunt to Feed? What about the one from the devil WB? And look! We made CT Deer Friendly again! http://www.deerfriendly.com/deer/connecticut
FAILED! Your study should be made into one of those YouTube videos showing epic fails. At least the taxpayers would be able to get a good laugh for their money
Sometimes people miss the forest for the trees.
By repeatedly mentioning Scott Wiliams Ph.D. and Tony DiNicola of White Buffalo here those names will continue to show up in searches. Next time someone is looking for an expert in blood-sucking parasites or deer vasectomy experts, they'll be able to read all about recent cases.
Bob, how goes the effort setting up that new company: White Lies, err Lice?
You guys make me laugh....
Ace, I submitted the paperwork for a Federal grant to set up the company just waiting to hear back from them. The way government hands out money I don't see a problem thanks for asking Ace.
I hope you you dotted your i's and crossed your t's. You know these are competitive grants that have a 5% chance of being awarded.
Doc, I'm not too worried if the government hands out money to see the drug effects on the mating of quail I think I have a shot
Viagra use in quail? What?
Cocaine not Viagra. Google it you'll find it DOC.
You should get Glen to FOIA them to make sure that taxpayer coke is being used properly.
In 2015 the CAES asked the CDC for a one year “no cost” extension for the ITM study. The CAES then billed the CDC $233,370.51.
In 2016 the CAES asked the CDC for a one year “no cost” extension for the ITM study. The CAES then billed the CDC $153,305.01. The total for the two year “no cost” extensions $386,675.52.
Dr. Williams's Link
A no cost extension means an additional year with no additional funding. So we turned a 3-year study into a 5-year study for the same amount of money we were awarded at the start. This is a very common practice.
I looked it up Bob. They are researching the causal mechanism of cocaine use on the brain resulting in increased sexual activity. This of course can lead to risky behaviors and increase in STD prevalence and put human health at risk, which is why it was funded by the National Institute of Health. See link.
In quail? You sure you got the right one. And why study the obvious. More sex with drug users results in STD. Don't need a study, just common sense
Ahhh the 80's...eating the invisible sandwich with girls that liked to clean all night...
Not necessarily bbb,it just increases the odds.
Obviously the intent of the study is to apply the witnessed behaviors to human behavior. Obviously there probably aren't many cokehead quail.
Yes Bob. Drugs = risky sex = more STDs. That is established. The point of the research you brought up is to understand the why that happens in the brain.
The brain has nothing to do with it, it all happens below the belt Doc.
Even the taxpayer-funded NIH has that figured out. But I wasn't aware that quail wear belts.
What do you think holds up their pants, suspenders?
Davis Aviation IR deer survey film 1/15/2015, of Redding, CT. for the ITM study. The film shows 9 targets on the one square mile White Birch test site and 9 targets on the one square mile Pheasant Ridge test site. We have also included time stamps of the target locations. These target locations were also verified by two other FLIR wildlife survey companies.
Dr. Scott Williams claims the two 1 square mile test sites contain 91 deer + (7) possible 1/16/15. Doc. please post the time stamps on the other “73 deer” no one else can find.
White Birch Test Area - 11 Confirmed (Targets/heat signatures). 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 / CAES (44 + deer) 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.
Dr. Williams's Link
Pheasant Ridge Test Area - 9 Confirmed (Targets/heat signatures) in the one square mile test area. 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 / CAES count (47 + deer) 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.
12:32. I never claimed “the two 1 square mile test sites contain 91 deer.” In fact, Davis detected 126 deer in the 4.58 square miles they surveyed around the two research areas. It is right there in the first page of the report in the link I posted for everyone to read. The images you provide here are produced by you and some “expert” to further validate the flight you funded by a firm that has been shown repeatedly to underestimate abundances by 75%. Additionally, if you read the report I posted, you will see Davis surveyed 2.12 square miles in and around White Birch and 2.46 in Pheasant Ridge, resulting in 25 and 32 deer/square mile respectively. Glen, you can make up your own data and you own version of this and post it on Bowsite, but I have posted all the documents myself and guys can read for themselves what Davis and I actually reported and not your rendition of it. I did not review the flyover data, Davis did as we paid them to do so to satisfy the terms of the Volunteer Authorization with DEEP. Additionally, look at the date of the report. This was 3 years ago almost to the day. I am not sure why you are so hung up on the Davis flight. Their results mirror what we got in our aerial snow counts as well as DEEPs for the area, and those results were not single digit deer densities. The Davis flight served to satisfy the terms of the DEEP permit. Our snow surveys were the “official” surveys.
Did you review the footage for the Drummer Lane and Blueberry Hill study areas as well? Why do you not have a problem with the results from those two sites? Because deer were not being removed from them? Drummer was the highest of the four with a Davis estimate of 36 deer/square mile and the more industrial Blueberry Hill in the Georgetown area had fewer, with 30/square mile.
Here is some reading for you on Vision Air doing a deer count in Delaware. I’d say the count was WAY low for the state.
Davis Aviation IR Survey Results - 1/15/2015
Davis Aviation IR Survey Results - 1/15/2015
Dr. Williams's Link
Doc - “12:32. I never claimed “the two 1 square mile test sites contain 91 deer.” In fact, Davis detected 126 deer in the 4.58 square miles they surveyed around the two research areas.”
Doc, On 1/16/2016, you notified the Chief of CT DEEP (William Hyatt) there were 47 deer on the Pheasant Ridge test site and 44 deer on White Birch test site, both test sites being approximate 1 square mile in size.
In the formal Davis Aviation IR survey report, stated 47 deer in 640 acres of Pheasant Ridge test site and 44 deer in 640 acres of White Birch test site; 640 acres is one square mile and 47+44=91.
Doc - BBB may be on to something; you may actually have a future in professional tap dancing !
3:10 pm. Hmmmm. Looks like Delaware estimates deer abundance based on deer habitat as well. So from those data, the deer biologist determined there was a statewide average of 44.3 deer/square mile of habitat in 2009.
Vision Air Survey Picture.......You can actually see deer to count them.
Vision Air Survey Picture.......You can actually see deer to count them.
Image from Davis Aviation Survey compared to image from Vision Air Survey.
I guess my point was that I didn't come up with the numbers. That's what we paid Davis to do. I reported their results to DEEP. That's it.
That is a pretty picture though. I wonder who was counting the deer when she zoomed in to take it?
airrow - first Doc says "He NEVER said there were 91 deer" and then he tapped danced around it after you provide written proof by saying he didn't come up with the 91, he just documented it and put it in his letter. WOW!! Fred Astaire is jealous of those dance moves.
Spike - I read your attachment and don't understand why you're saying the counts were low?? They didn't provide a count for the entire state, just certain sectors, just like Redding. What am I missing?
Good grief. I reported Davis's results to DEEP. Guilty as charged. Should I have doubled the number then reported it?
Doc - “Good grief. I reported Davis's results to DEEP. Guilty as charged. Should I have doubled the number then reported it?”
Doc you actually multiplied the filmed results by 4X, you need to review the Davis IR survey film and explain to us how this is possible ?
8:22. Again Glen, I do not need to respond to your made up results of someone else’s work that suits your agenda. We paid Davis for their survey to satisfy the terms of the DEEP Authorization and reported their results. Again, if there were 9 deer each in Pheasant Ridge and White Birch as you claim using someone else’s work, and WB removed 6 from one area and 5 from the other, how is it possible we counted 9 deer at White Birch and 36 at Pheasant Ridge 2 months later? Did the does drop fawns in March of 2015? Must have been. That is the only explanation aside from your bogosity.
Doc - You need to calm down and watch the Davis IR Survey film; this is the photographic evidence of the 18 targets on the two square mile, CDC ITM test sites on 1/15/2015.
So should we rename this thread "White Birch Reviewed-Three Years Later?" For how many more years are we going to continue doing this?
can you guys find a new topic to argue about? I'm loosing interest :)
Dr. Williams's Link
So I was watching a show today and they were showing a guy drifting down a river looking for beaver. Anyone else find any beaver from a boat? Or maybe some other strange location?
Nope never saw a beaver on a boat
POGIE Of the stinky kind!!!!..where did you net the one lone bunker on this side of the Pecos
Bob I found one once 90 ft off the ground in the basket of my fire truck !
Wow, beaver in a basket. Only a fireman could pull that one off. Was it one of those big, stinky beavers? They're nasty.
Well let’s just say she would of dressed out less then me that’s all I’m saying lol
Might go jig up some stinky herring then hit hot water discharge
Might go jig up some stinky herring then hit hot water discharge
Next week is supposed to be warm, so good time to whip out your rod and get it wet. Might be some strippers around the sound you can troll for. Big eels are what they like to eat.
Strippers? Not even an attempt to be subtle.
Oh did I type strippers? I meant stripers of course. What would I do with a stripper?