Redding`s Magic Deer and Tick Study

      There are actually more scientific cases against the removal of deer to lower Lyme disease than are case`s for it.  Every case that is promoting the removal of deer would seem to have a monitory agenda behind it along with their inflated deer counts to support their theory.      Scott Williams of the CAES has done exactly what he said he would do; summed up in the ITM test study proposal stating,  "……we will incorporate established and novel components that will enhance the outputs and outcomes of the project. "  What he really should have said was,  “ we will manipulated the facts and the protocols for the CDC ITM study to promote ourselves and the pre-determined outcome of the study ".        The March 2013 the 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).       January 9, 2014 (CT DEEP Forum,  Putnam Park) Scott Williams states that the deer numbers were 30+ deer per square mile in both test sites.       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.       February 11, 2014 CAES aerial survey data was published and shows that deer numbers had increased to 45 deer per square mile in test site.       Now those are some really magical deer,  a 450% population increase in less than a year.  It would seem a mystery or even magic,  that deer exponentially increased in numbers in these two areas even though the CAES stated in their original 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 trick or a deception.  In this case the deception is the manipulation of data to include multipliers and increased survey areas, what Scott Williams calls;  loose test site boundaries.       And how they were able to kill another 25 deer in 2014, was to operate outside of the designated two test sites by 1/2 - 3/5 of a mile where more deer were available; violating both the test parameters and the rules they were required to follow by CT DEEP. We understand the CT DEEP .8  or + 25% correction factor for deer not seen;   but we do not understand a  + 450%  correction factor for the number of deer they did see