Bowsite.com

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.

Link doesn't work

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321322577_Integrated_Control_of_Nymphal_Ixodes_scapularis_Effectiveness_of_White-Tailed_Deer_Reduction_the_Entomopathogenic_Fungus_Metarhizium_anisopliae_and_Fipronil-Based_Rodent_Bait_Boxes

"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.

Email me the final report and I will post it on my lunch break.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322404135_Ixodes_scapularis_Acari_Ixodidae_Reservoir_Host_Diversity_and_Abundance_Impacts_on_Dilution_of_Borrelia_burgdorferi_Spirochaetales_Spirochaetaceae_in_Residential_and_Woodland_Habitats_in_Connecticut_U

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322602573_TERMINATION_REPORT_Project_Title_An_Integrated_and_Individual_Tick_Management_Program_to_Reduce_Risk_of_Lyme_Disease_in_a_Residential_Endemic_Area

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322602573_TERMINATION_REPORT_Project_Title_An_Integrated_and_Individual_Tick_Management_Program_to_Reduce_Risk_of_Lyme_Disease_in_a_Residential_Endemic_Area

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Did I mention that I recently patented a teeny tiny little tranquilizer gun?

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?

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.

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.

Nope. Deforestation and car accidents.

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.

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?

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.

Not necessarily bbb,it just increases the odds.

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.

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.

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.

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 !

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?

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 ?

Nope never saw a beaver on a boat