Overview of the Minority Report of the Ridgefield Deer Committee - Presented by Gwen Thaxter to BOS on September 21, 2005

Click here for the complete report. Use the Search function in Adobe Acrobat Reader to navigate within the document.

Objectives

• To analyze the methods and conclusions of the Ridgefield Deer Committee.

• To propose alternatives that support a science-based, effective and humane approach to managing the deer population in Ridgefield.

   

Committee Report Deficiencies

• Inadequate Information Collection

• Liabilities and Costs Not Addressed

• Lyme Disease Misinformation

• Misunderstanding of Biodiversity

• Erroneous Vehicle/Deer Incident Data

• Insufficient Exploration of Deer Hunting and Safety Issues

• Committee Report Deficiencies

• Information Deficiencies

• No objective or scientific survey of residents

• No hard data on safety issues

   

Legal and Financial Deficiencies

• Liabilities not addressed

• Additional town costs and increased tax burden

   

Lyme Disease Misinformation

• Misconception that killing deer controls Lyme Disease

• Inaccurate citations of Lyme disease incidents in Ridgefield

• Reference to obsolete scientific studies

• Misleading conclusions due to geographic differences

   

Biodiversity

• Committee made no clear definition of “biodiversity” and what is an acceptable level of biodiversity and ecosystem health in Ridgefield.

• Committee did not understand that biodiversity is a complicated subject, and it involves many factors, not just deer.

   

Deer Hunting and Safety

• Committee failed to review and consider safety factors in allowing hunting in Ridgefield.

• No hard data or consideration of the many safety issues and concerns to:
  • adult residents
  • children, in particular
  • wildlife
  • domestic animals, including dogs, cats and others.

  According to the CT Agricultural Experiment Station hunting is often not feasible or safe in suburban areas, due to high human densities.
• Hunting, or lethal control to solve problems involving wildlife requires a sound understanding of population status and the dynamics of the animal itself.
  • The Committee did not do this.

• Bacteria, temperature, and the uncontrolled conditions in which a deer is killed can contribute to food safety problems.
  • Connecticut boy sickened by E. coli in consumed venison.

• Donation of venison to the homeless is part of the campaign of hunting groups and lobbies to gain public acceptance for killing animals. 

   

Alternatives To Be Considered

• Investigation and analysis of scientific, non-lethal methods which are currently available

• Use of 4-Poster Deer Treatment Bait Station in appropriate areas

• Placement of Strieter-Lite Wild Animal Warning Reflector System on high incidence deer/vehicle roadways

• Resident use of the Maxforce Tick Management System for controlling mice 

   

Conclusions

Successful deer management requires:

• Science-based understanding and approach

• Use of proven effective and non-lethal methods

Such an approach will make Ridgefield a model community for humane and effective deer management.