CT-NAB Targets The
The Fairfield County Municipal Deer Management Alliance (hereinafter
“
lies and pro-hunting agenda with its current poster campaign entitled
“HELP CONTROL the deer population in
First and foremost, the public should be aware of the lack of credentials
of this group, who have no real expertise in deer management or
science. The chairman, Tom Belote, is an attorney and hunter with no
credentials with regard to the management of deer (except for killing
them).
The most glaring example of questionable credentials, however, is
Alliance Vice Chair Georgina Scholl. She has identified herself as a
doctor/M.D., in her work for the
records from the Connecticut Health Department, Scholl is not a licensed
medical doctor in
a Lyme disease (LD) specialist. As a result, her public position on
LD/deer and public health in
The poster highlights 10+ “Did You Know” bullet items that are
irresponsible, at best.
1. The
number every 2 or 3 years.”
This is not true. First, the
“unmanaged” as a cover for hunting. It wants to use hunting to
manage deer populations in
are regulated or managed naturally by mortality and other conditions
such as variable density, or limited food resulting in does having one
or no fawns.
The
These limited, confined deer are given abundant food and little or no
mortality or migration occurs. This kind of situation does not
represent the real world.
“The most visible weakness in the assertion that hunting is
necessary to control deer populations is that IT HAS LARGELY
FAILED TO DO SO OVER THE LAST TWO DECADES…Just
because deer are being killed doesn’t mean that deer populations
are being controlled.”
Allen T. Rutberg, Ph.D.
Management: An Animal Welfare Perspective” in The Science of
Overabundance – Deer Ecology and Population Management.
Scientists conducted a study which revealed that deer hunting is
not having an impact on deer herds. The three year study is
ground-breaking. It was conducted by Adjunct Assistant
Professor of Wildlife Duane Diefenbach, who is a deer hunter
himself, at
There have been studies of hunter movement in the past, but
those studies used maps marked by the hunters themselves. The
maps were improperly accepted as accurate without
independent verification. The
technology and it was accurate. Researchers learned that deer
hunters are not very good at judging distances, and very few
hunters actually walk more than 1/3 of a mile from roads. So few
deer were killed that it had no impact on deer management.
See "
An Impact On The Deer Herd In Some Places",
College of Agricultural Sciences,
In addition, bow-hunting is particularly ineffective for reducing
deer populations. For example, many scientific studies establish
that bow hunting wounds and cripples a large percentage of deer,
with an average crippling rate of 50%. It is a cruel and primitive
method of killing deer, and it does not reduce deer populations
due to this extremely high crippling rate.
See Benke, A. The Bowhunting Alternative. B. Todd Press,
Dr. Uma Ramakrishnan of the Connecticut Agricultural
Experiment Station, who is studying non-lethal methods of
controlling deer, has admitted the limitations of hunting:
· Hunting is often not feasible or safe in suburban areas, due to
high human densities. It is often not socially acceptable.
· Intermediate to low levels of hunting may result in improved
overall deer health and reproductive output, because hunting often
reduces competition for the surviving deer, which then have
access to more food, resulting in more fawns.
· Deer learn to avoid areas during hunting season and take
refuge in areas where hunting is restricted.
· Deer can stay bedded during the day and feed after dark, thus
avoiding hunting periods – hunting is prohibited after daylight
hours.
See www.cases.state.ct.us/PlantScienceDay/2002PSD/Deer.
The
deer-vehicle accidents. It is preposterous to suggest that hunting
will reduce vehicle accidents. Safety and reducing vehicle accidents
are the responsibility of 1) individual drivers, and 2) external
conditions such as high speed limits, time of day/night and season,
road and weather conditions, roadside maintenance practices (for
example, short cropped grasses and winter salting attract deer to
roads). These factors can be addressed by public safety changes
and education. Strieter-Lites and lower speed limits can help reduce
deer-vehicle accidents.
Strieter-Lite is a wild animal warning reflector system. New statistical
analysis based on road test data proves that Strieter-Lite is 78 to
90% effective in preventing vehicle collisions with deer and other wild
animals (it also replaces the old reflector system known as
Swareflex). It has been used and tested throughout the
States and
Jersey,
cost-effective collision prevention system available.
If the
address the real dangers to people and property caused by hunting.
2. The
disease rates.”
This is not true. High mice populations lead to high Lyme disease
rates.
White-footed mice are the most important host for Lyme disease
bacteria, which is maintained in the bloodstream of mice. Ticks
become infected after feeding on mice. Deer - and other animals -
may serve as a host to the adult ticks but deer do not transmit the
Lyme disease bacteria. Additionally, ticks thwart deer reduction
efforts, e.g., by switching to other animals, including humans and
domestic pets. According to proven scientific studies, even when the
deer population is reduced as much as 86% the reduction in ticks is
insufficient to diminish the reproduction cycle.
Other host animals include chipmunks, squirrels, rabbits, 49 birds
species and all mammals (except bats). For example, birds can
transport Lyme disease to new areas (Anderson, 1988, Battaly and
Fish, 1993).
Deer do not transmit the Lyme disease bacterium which causes
Lyme disease. Adult ticks that feed on deer will not acquire the
bacteria, nor the disease, from deer.
Deer cannot pass Lyme disease on to anything or anyone. And,
there can be infectious ticks and Lyme disease present on your
property even if you do not have deer!
Scientists conducted a 2004 CT study confirming the key role of
mice in transmitting Lyme disease.
See: “Borrelia burgdorferi infection…” by Jonas Bunikis, et al., Journal of
Infectious Diseases,
See also nationally recognized experts: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases/National Institutes of Health; Steven Schutzer, MD, LD specialist,
The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID),
part of the National Institutes of Health, confirmed that not only are
white-footed mice a key animal reservoir for Lyme disease, but
demonstrated that the broad-based vaccination of wild mice could
help reduce Lyme disease risk in humans.
The NIAID released a "proof-of principle" study in December 2004
which demonstrates that vaccinating a carrier of a vector-borne
disease in the wild is a potential method for preventing transmission
of that disease to humans. The study was conducted in 12 forested
sites in Connecticut. The most logical way to implement the
vaccination of large numbers of wild mice is through targeted food
pellets or bait boxes, much like the rabies vaccination program that
has met with success in the
program would also be environmentally beneficial because it would
not detrimentally affect the ecology of a region.
See Report of NIAID dated
of Wild Mice Could Help Reduce Lyme Disease Risk in Humans", at the NIAID
website: www.niaid.nih.gov.
Contrary to statements made by Pat Sesto of the Alliance CT-NAB
has acknowledged that deer are host to adult ticks. Pat Sesto is not
a wildlife biologist. What Pat Sesto and the
acknowledge is the fact that nationally recognized scientists and
organizations have established that WILD MICE carry the bacteria
that causes Lyme disease. They distort this fact, and try to place the
blame for Lyme disease on deer. Stopping the spread of Lyme
disease starts with targeting MICE, not deer.
Why are Pat Sesto and the
they are either 1) incapable of understanding science and the facts,
or 2) deliberately distorting the issues.
3. The
of cases of Lyme in
highest rate of Lyme in the
The medical community and Department of Public Health do not have complete and accurate record keeping of Lyme diseases cases in
Ironically,
4. The
deer per square mile without suffering damage.”
There is no scientific evidence to support the
that woodlands can only support 10 to 15 deer per square mile
without suffering damage. The
otherwise identify exactly what “woodlands” it is talking about in
property. It also does not know how many deer can be supported in
these unidentified “woodlands.” The
scientific studies of any “woodlands” or deer population in
Further, the
and what is an acceptable level of biodiversity and ecosystem health
in
involves many factors, not just deer. It can not be addressed by
simply recommending that we kill deer, or by allowing so-called
sport hunters to determine the status and health of the environment in
5. The
plant species.”
This is not true. There is no scientific evidence to support their claim
that deer are causing loss of native bird and plant species in
The mechanisms regulating populations of resident and migratory
birds are not fully understood and are controversial. It should also be
noted that migratory birds - not local, resident birds - compose the
majority of species and individuals in temperate climates. Bird
populations are affected by three basic factors, NOT SIMPLY DEER:
1) direct and indirect interactions among individual birds, e.g.,
crowding, territoriality, 2) environmental conditions, and 3) intrinsic
differences among individual birds.
See "Multiple density-dependence mechanisms regulate a migratory bird
population during the breeding season." Nicholas L. Rodenhouse, T. Scott Sillett,
Patrick J. Doran and Richard T. Holmes, Dept. of Biological Sciences, Wellesley
College; Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center; Dept. of Biological Sciences,
Dartmouth College, The Royal Society Proceedings, August 28, 2003.
There is also an absence of science behind claims that deer are
responsible for the disappearance of unidentified “plant species” in
connection with such “plant species.” It should be obvious that there
are many environmental factors affecting plants, for example, soil
conditions, weather, insects, etc., and NOT SIMPLY DEER! Further,
there are humane ways of reducing wildlife damage to property and
flowers.
Experts have recommended using fences, repellents, scare devices,
etc. See article entitled: “Humanely Reducing Agricultural Wildlife
Damage: Deer” at the Humane Society of the
– www.hsus.org/ace/21233. Dr. Oswald J. Schmitz of
has recommended, among other solutions, altering landscape to
make it less desirable to deer. We, as residents of
have the responsibility to resolve any deer problem by understanding
how our land use practices affect deer, and in turn use this scientific
understanding to change the way the landscape is being developed.
6. The
square mile.”
This is not true. Once again, the
lie. There have been no accurate, objective surveys of deer
populations in “local towns” in
cited by the
apply to the conditions of the towns and populated suburban
communities in
The Alliance misleads the public by referring to a survey of the Weir
Farm at the Ridgefield/Wilton border. Their statement “a deer density of 79 deer per square mile” bends facts to suit their established hunt-promoting agenda. The Weir property is not comparable to the town of
The public must understand: Aerial surveys of entire towns involve
many separate transects. The deer counts for all transects are
multiplied by a visibility factor to correct for deer that were present but
hidden by the topography. Different areas have various correction
factors determined by the DEP’s own magic formulas.
The
7. The
ticks virtually disappear.”
This is not true. There is no scientific evidence that at less than 8
deer per square mile, or any other number, Lyme disease ticks
virtually disappear. There is no scientific evidence that deer
reduction could dramatically reduce Lyme disease. Again, Lyme
ticks get the bacteria that causes Lyme disease from WILD MICE,
not deer.
8. The
Lyme disease.”
This is not true, as set forth in Section 7 above. “Deer reduction,”
which is a code word for hunting by gun or bow, does not reduce
Lyme disease. Scientists have established that killing deer does not
control/manage Lyme disease, contrary to Georgina Scholl’s and
Scientists have proven that nonlethal methods reduce Lyme disease
far better than killing deer. Killing as much 86% of a deer population
does not significantly disrupt the tick’s breeding cycle. This is why
credible scientific entities are NOT recommending hunting to control
LD: e.g., J. Matthew Pound, PhD, J. Allen Miller, and Craig A. Le
Meilleur of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
developers of The 4-Poster Deer Treatment Bait Station, patented
on November 29, 1994 under US Patent Nol 5,367,983, and the US
Center for Disease Control and Prevention/Bayer Environmental
Science which developed the Maxforce Tick Management System
targeting ticks on mice.
9. The
deer.”
This is not true. There is such birth control and, in fact, the CT DEP
allows the use of contraception in research studies. The Connecticut
Agricultural Experiment Station itself is testing non-lethal methods of
controlling deer population growth, including sterilizing large males.
Scientists have utilized immuno-contraceptives in several case
studies of animals, including wild horses and deer. Research
indicates that it can be a safe, and more humane way, of reducing
animal populations. For example, a field test of
immuno-contraception was conducted on white-tailed deer by the
Humane Society,
SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Medical
College of Ohio, and the
Veterinary Medicine. In the 1st phase of the study, it was
demonstrated that annual PZP (porcine zona pellucida) vaccinations
can be delivered to large numbers of unconfined, white-tailed deer
without capturing them, and that such vaccinations significantly and
markedly reduced the production of fawns among treated animals.
See “Field testing of immunocontraception on white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus) on Fire Island National Seashore,
T. Rutberg, H.B. Underwood, J.W. Turner, Jr., and I. K. M. Liu, Society for
Reproduction and Fertility, 2002, Reproduction Supplement.
© CT-NAB 2006
All Rights Reserved