WB Reports SI Deer Down 8%
Connecticut
Very timely. Includes a 2018 population estimate.
Did 8% die on the operating table ?? From what I hear from friends that live there one is dead on every corner from car hits .It should take 5 to 8 years before you see a difference If every bucks gets one . mho
8% is brag worthy? That's a rounding error!
So 2 years, how many millions of dollars? At this rate, WB will be a few billion $ in before NYC realizes that a lot of the bucks in NJ now have ear tags, and many of those on SI do not. Nice work if you can get it ... oh, and don't mind running a typical Lefty Scam.
What a JOKE!! Down 8% from what starting point? We've seen numbers reported as low as 500 to as high as 2,000, and WB has participated in the estimates several time themselves, incorrectly each time. And how did they get the current tally to determine a reduction took place? Oh, here's where it came from, the contractor getting paid millions to deliver a reduction. No conflict of interest there.
"The most recent survey conducted by White Buffalo and verified by the city's Parks Department estimated the borough's deer population in 2017 at 2,053 with a decrease to 1,884 in 2018."
"A 2014 aerial survey found 763 deer in Staten Island's green space" "The city believes a couple hundred bucks call Staten Island home" "The New York City Parks Department estimates 2,000 of them call Staten Island home." "Roaming the borough are between 1,918 and 2,188 deer, according to a new estimate from the city contractor giving vasectomies to borough bucks. "
12:20. Ace. Not brag worthy. Just reporting the article. I think all can agree that in my 7-word post there is nothing that can be construed as bragging. However, let us compare an 8% non-lethal reduction to a lethal one. Let’s look at our favorite town, Redding in 2016. The Deer Program Summary reports 135 deer killed in Redding in 2016. That is 4.3 deer/square mile reduction on 32 square miles. 169 fewer deer on Staten Island (60 square miles) is a 2.8 deer/square mile reduction. Not bragging, just stating facts. Hunters should be doing far better than that difference by killing deer instead of snipping their nuts.
I agree Steve. As mortality increases beyond replacement rates, population will go down. In an insanely urban area like NYC, should not take long to drive down that population through the biggest deer predator in the urban jungle, the Buick.
Yes Bob. Down 8% from their starting point from last year, 2,053 as reported in the link. The low ball estimates are the result of Vision Air’s work, which actually reported that the SI deer population was going down from 2014-2016. We have established that. When you tag most of the bucks and know how many tags are out, you can put out cameras and based on the proportion of tagged vs untagged animals photographed, figure out a population estimate. It’s called mark-recapture and a pretty common means of population estimation with photographic evidence and documentation of the animals on the ground.
Oh, so Tony is guessing, got it.
So unscientificaly speaking in notme lingo....i can walk into a bar,assess the situation, tag and photograph a mess of does then figure out the remaining population of that nights herd by guessing at how many didnt call the flat foots on me...hmmmm interesting
Not me, but the problem is Tony D from WB doesn't know how many bucks are there, so how can he say he tagged most of them when at the start of the program he thought most was 200?? Just more Monday morning quarter backing in the numbers.
No Bob, not guessing. Using science and math and 1000s and 1000s of photographs. See these links about using the technique on deer, puma, horses, and snow leopards. A very common technique. I even included a wildlife biology 101 link in there for you too. Just because you don’t understand it does not mean it’s not valid. I can explain the technique to you, but I am guessing you won't listen.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0123032 https://www.fws.gov/verobeach/FloridaPantherRIT/20141028%20Addlands%20Panther%20Camera%20Survey.pdf http://www.wildlifebiology.org/sites/wildlifebiology.org/files/appendix/wb-13-048.pdf http://snowleopardconservancy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Jackson_Camera_trap_WSB-1.pdf https://www.fort.usgs.gov/sites/default/files/products/publications/22422/22422.pdf https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu/stat506/node/58
And Bob, here is a paper by the Cornell guys you love for their criticism of WB's sterilization effort. Guess what? They use game cameras to estimate deer abundance too. They have Ph. Ds so they must have learned how to do this from books....
And look who their first citation is!! Why it's DeNicola and Williams!
Doc - read your last post and tell me the key word? I'll give you a moment. See it now? It's "ESTIMATE"! Now, you can estimate the age at which you will die, or estimate the weight of a deer, or estimate how hot it will be tomorrow, and NONE of those are correct or factual. Guesses Doc, just guesses. The article you attached even verifies this in the first paragraph, so thanks for confirming what I stated. Neither you nor Tony KNOW how many deer were on the island at the start or today.
And thanks for verifying what I said about with the attached article, here are some quotes from it.
" However, accurate estimates of abundance are difficult to obtain".
A guess is not synonymous with a population estimate using tried and true and published mark-recapture techniques. Which is more reliable an estimate: me sitting here on the treadmill guessing there are 4,458 deer in a population or using 1000s of photographs and a known population of 1,100 tagged uniquely identifiable bucks to quantify the proportion of marked to unmarked animals photographed and then screening the data to determine a population estimate?
If you use the same technique both in 2017 and 2018, then you can compare the differences between to two to confidently determine what the population is doing. This is what the DEEPs aerial surveys are meant to do, compare population trends between years, and not to estimate absolute population abundance.
What's the error rate for this method Doc. From what I read it's 10 percent, so the first estimate could have been +10 percent error and the second could have been -10 percent so all you get is a guess. Just because you're using the same flawed method doesn't give you an accurate count. That is stated in your article.
Yes Bob, but because you are using the same method year to year, the difference between them are comparable because the error should be the same. Same as the US census. The 2010 census was not a guess and neither will be the 2020 census. How close to the actual number of people did they or will they get? Not sure. But you can assume the same amount of error between the two, so the differences are comparable to determine how much the population presumably increased.
The problem is Doc that the numbers that were estimated on Staten Island were way off even with FLIR. But now when Tony dinicola says he estimates a reduction you say those numbers are accurate. My belief is none of the estimates have been proven to be accurate and the reports reflect that.
Yes Bob. That's because the FLIR survey is a lousy technique. Her technique reported fewer deer in 2016 than she counted several years before. Mark recapture with 1100 marked animals is a much more reliable and robust technique. NYC is not using FLIR anymore both because her 2016 count was less than her previous count despite an obvious growth in population and the fact that she counted 527 DEER in 2016 and later, that same year, WB captured and sterilized 720 bucks. Bucks seldom account for 100% of the demographic and I don't think they have ever been reported to account for 137% as was the case here if we use the FLIR "data."
The only thing you're proving doc by your comments is that all the counts were wrong. Every time there's a count it's different even the ones White Buffalo estimated.
Wow an 8% reduction in one year...........But that number does not take into account how many deer died from DVC`s or directly from the SI vasectomy program in 2017. So now we have White Buffalo "counting the deer" on SI to show a "favorable outcome" for a program, without any oversight.
Sure it accounts for DVCs Glen. If a deer from 2017 was killed in a DVC after the count, it wouldn't be available to be counted again in 2018. Not sure why you keep posting a link from 7 months ago....
Headline that make no sense:
"Banker robber states he just made a withdrawal, didn't rob the bank, cops let him go" "The check is in the mail, collections company wipes clean balance due" "White Buffalo says deer herd down 8%"
In 2013, Vision Air counted 793 deer on Staten Island (http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2014/10/in_six_years_deer_population_o.html). In 2016 after no management action, Vision Air counted 527 deer on Staten Island (http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/07/staten_island_deer_count_2016.html). So if NYC wants to reduce their deer herd by another 34% on the cheap, they should just let Vision Air count the deer again in 2019. That should bring it down to 347 deer if the statistics hold.
Thanks for making my point
So in Redding, WB counted too many deer and on SI, they're not counting enough? Or perhaps guys are just criticizing because it is clear WB can do what hunters cannot? Anyone can verify the camera data by putting up cameras themselves. Glen should buy Mad Dog some.
So in Redding WB said lots of deer (pick a number, it doesn't matter) but they FAIL to find them so fall short of the cull number. On SI they contract a project with "x" number of deer (again pick a number) and find deer that didn't exist. To me experts are able to identify where they are at the start to determine the expected outcome. WB does neither well.
Thanks for making my point.
Doc, it was my pleasure. I hope you don't have any problems finding a hat to fit over that point.
vasectomy for deer is a joke....be right back to where they were in a couple of years. dum asses. cant blam white buffalo.....who wouldnt take a job like that! question is how do these guys land these gigs.....mist have the gift for gab! lmao
Wait... What? So Bob is now agreeing that WB is not to blame and they are just serving their client's desires? Kind of a 180 on everything else you've posted previously. Interesting shift....
Here, here to the dumbass part, sorry for the confusion.
Doc - “Sure it accounts for DVCs Glen. If a deer from 2017 was killed in a DVC after the count, it wouldn't be available to be counted again in 2018. Not sure why you keep posting a link from 7 months ago....”
Doc......The proplem is the deer were killed by (DVC’s) prior to the WB count. Pay close attention........
The most recent deer count that WB did included deer from 2017-2018 (year 2). In 2016-2017 (year1) WB claims 2,053 deer and in 2017-2018 WB claims 1,884 deer for a difference of 169 deer, yet in 2017 there were approximately 150 deer killed by DVC’s + .5% (9 deer) killed that could be attributed to the vasectomy program. So approximately 159 deer were killed by DVC’s and the vasectomy program leaving approximately 10 deer that could possibly be attributated to the vasectomy program. WB is claiming a success rate of 8% when in reality it is less than .5%, starting year 3.
As Doc tells us; no one should pay attention to what’s happening on Staten Island, NY.........We should just accept what WB states and what is written in local papers. Maybe the title of the article should read........
Staten Island deer population down 1/2% in year 3 of the controversial three year 3.6M dollar deer vesictimy program.
Glen. You seem to be misinformed about the point of a non-lethal deer management program. The point is deer that die naturally, or from other sources of mortality, are not replaced. From a management standpoint, it doesn't matter how or when they die, just that mortality rate is greater than replacement. The WB sterilization effort resulted in negative population growth by 8% from year 1 to year 2. Period. Sterilizing deer doesn't kill them. Not sure how you can attribute the deaths of 10 deer (169-159) to a non-lethal effort. It doesn't work that way. This is pretty basic stuff here. Save the talking down to me for when you grasp this. And it's "vasectomy....."
Doc - you should have taken that economics course instead of spelling,......much more useful and you wouldn't make such a _ _ of yourself,.....or maybe you would.
Doc “Save the talking down to me for when you grasp this.”
Doc.....You have dug yourself a hole 15’ deep over the last 3 years !..........Talking down to you is very appropriate.
airrow - I think when Scotty was a young boy his favorite reason for saying or doing something wrong was - "Because". He couldn't find a reason for his bad decisions so it wasn't possible to explain himself, kind of like being on a bow site even though you don't bow hunt. Makes absolutely no sense at all to reasonable people, a group that Doc has never been part of. His shovel must be pretty worn out by now, he's been digging holes for himself for years now.
