On Deer Cull Issue-Panel Advised To Be Patient
On Deer Cull Issueâ
Panel Advised To Be Patient
By Kendra Bobowick
From several experts came the advice: both time and acceptance are critical. The Tick-Borne Disease Action Committee members heard that advice as the group again met last Wednesday to weigh solutions for reducing tick-related illnesses. Options may or may not mean a local deer cull.
From Director of Environmental Affairs in Wilton Pat Sesto came the advice regarding a decision to implement a controlled hunt. âWe got our information out to the public; getting the public involved in what we were doing and why garnered support,â she said.
The hunt, which slowly gained access to additional privately owned properties each year was a âcareful decision and needed the public on board for hunting open space. We went through paces,â she said.
Her comments often returned to public perception. âIt can be slow and painful, but totally necessary â dealing with social aspects and building constituency,â Ms Sesto said.
Again this week members noted the social aspect of their challenge. Although the discussion soon turned to the motivations for inviting animal advocates to speak, member Maggie Shaw said, âItâs part of the social aspect that Pat Sesto talked about, so the public knows weâre taking that into consideration.â
During an interview this week Howard Kilpatrick, wildlife biologist with the Department of Environmental Protectionâs Wildlife Division, who has published extensive studies on deer in relation to the environment, disease, and the urban environment, agreed, âPublic support is key ⦠but often, that takes time.â Just as the committee in Newtown and elsewhere becomes educated with through studies, expert speakers, literature, etc, so must the public, he said.
Why is there no magic bullet to solving the deer/tick/disease equation in relation to public health? He said, âThere are so many people and opinions, it is difficult to get an agreement. No magic bullet exists,â he said, which is why the study of various methods of reduction for deer, ticks, and disease persist.
Also with people and opinions in mind, Ms Shaw said, âI think social issues are affecting our committee,â which are making progress difficult. She asked, âCan personal philosophies be left behind?â Noting that the groupâs charge included a priority of public health and safety, she said, âIf social issues prevent that, itâs clear it needs to be addressed in a respectful manner.â
Although mentioning social issues as a potential hurdle among group members, this weekâs conversation centered on Ms Shawâs invitation for committee member Mark Alexander to speak on behalf of an animal advocacy group, the Newtown Animal Center. Vice Chairman Michele McLeod questioned the suggestion. âPlease be very specific, please be very accurate when you characterize what the local population is saying; itâs not saying animal rights action, itâs saying that killing [deer on a certain scale] wonât make a differenceâ¦â
âThatâs your opinion,â Ms Shaw stated.
Mr Alexander soon rebutted, âIâve been accused of coming on with an agenda â¦â
âNo, Mark,â Ms Shaw began.
He spoke, âI think thatâs exactly what Iâve been accused of.â He then stated, âI think there needs to be good reason for killing deer.â He noted no philosophical objection, saying again, âBut there needs to be a reason.â
Doctor Peter Licht offered, âWe donât know if weâre having a hard time, we havenât even begun debating. We havenât even started. No one has formally said if they are for or against â¦â
After additional discussion Ms McLeod said, âI think we need to stop accusing and focus on our work.â
Member Kim Harrison bristled. âI think what Michele [McLeod] said clearly is directed at myself and Maggie [Shaw]. There is an expression, âIf you live in a glass house â¦ââ
âWeâre not going to have that discussion,â Chairman Dr Robert Grossman warned.
âGreat,â Ms Harrison said. âGreat.â
âWeâll all listen and make decisions,â Dr Grossman continued.
âFine,â Ms Harrison said.
âWe donât have to have a unanimous decision,â Dr Grossman said. Once the committee arrives at its recommendations, a deliberation that will begin next week as members note one anotherâs inclinations, a majority and minority report might be the groupâs end result. Ultimately, the Board of Selectmen must take the recommendation and make its own decision, Dr Grossman said.
Looking at the various âscienceâ and studies, reports, data, and speakers who have come before the committee, Ms Shaw asked, âSomeone says this science or that science and one person says one thing and another person has other science and disagrees. How are we going to do this?â
Breaking the tension, Dr Grossman joked, âWhat? You think weâre better than Congress?â Members then discussed how best to prepare for their next meeting.
What is the answer?
Last week Ms Sesto spoke again about integrating a solution. Deer management is âa big fiscal challenge,â she said.
âSomeday people will say, âWeâre really tired of dealing with Lyme and will put up the money.ââ
This week Dr Grossman had also mentioned the hurdle of finding enough funding to implement an effective solution. âOur decision may cost a lot of money and the town may say we donât have the money. So that is the decision.â
Later that evening Selectman William Furrier spoke, âIt sounds like youâve got your hands full,â he began. Before he mentioned cash flow, he noted the social hurdles saying, âI agree that all opinions should be heard and brought out, a majority and minority argument.â
Questioning any planâs feasibility in light of budget constraints, Dr Grossman asked how money would âcome into play.â
Mr Furrier replied, âMoney is tight, but we spend a lot of money that is not public safety related. Donât worry about the money.â
âWeâre going to recommend what we feel is best,â Dr Grossman said.