Town Should Exercise Caution In Deer Reduction Plan

To the Editor:

At a recent meeting the Newtown Board of Selectmen announced its intention to ask the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection to assist in addressing the deer problem in town, the deer being referred to as a “nuisance.” This is made possible by Connecticut Public Act 03-192 whereby towns can ask for state assistance if deer are deemed to be a nuisance. One has to wonder how society has come to the point where we are willing to take drastic measures when we consider something to be a nuisance.

Nevertheless, I realize that there may be other reasons that some want the deer herd to be thinned: the reduction of tick borne diseases, deer-car collisions, etc. Killing deer may seem like the appropriate remedy to these important issues. However, the simple models of deer reduction simply do not work. The reality is that deer population dynamics are just that, dynamic. When one factor changes, other factors also change. And as the herd is thinned, the success rate of hunters, as well as their interest, plummets. Additionally, there is the significant issue of access — most land in Newtown is privately owned.

As many scientists have pointed out, reduction of deer numbers can be accomplished on large tracts of land over time, but killing deer on isolated, small parcels does essentially nothing to have an impact on the overall population in a town. Thus, we see that of the other towns in Fairfield County that have embarked on deer reduction programs through recreational hunting, not one of them can demonstrate reduced deer, reduced ticks, or reduced Lyme disease.

Currently the town of Redding is under a plan developed by the DEEP for deer reduction. One would assume that any plan developed by DEEP for Newtown would be similar to the Redding plan, which calls for a reduction of 276 female deer for each of six years in succession. (In 2010 Redding killed 158 female deer.) This plan does not account for changes in factors as time goes on — the dynamic process or “sensitivity analysis” as the scientists call it. It will be instructive to see what Redding’s experience is in this venture.

I would ask that Newtown move slowly and cautiously with any plan for lethal deer reduction. Also, I wonder if we have thoroughly investigated other solutions to this problem. Americans have long been known for their creative thinking and ability to solve difficult problems. Let’s not succumb now to a knee-jerk reaction which has shown to be ineffective in other towns.

Mary Gaudet-Wilson

12 Whippoorwill Hill Road, Newtown                    January 25, 2012