DEEP Has A Vested Interest

In Deer Hunting

To the Editor:

At the December 19 Board of Selectmen meeting, our first selectman reported on correspondence with the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP). DEEP has offered to help create a “deer management” program. Our first selectman specifically requested guidance in achieving a deer density of 10–12 per square mile. DEEP has represented both to our first selectman and to other towns that this can be achieved through controlled hunting within a five-year period.

The decision to request DEEP to formulate a deer management program is analogous to asking a fox to recommend poultry population management options. The DEEP budget relies upon the sale of hunting permits and paraphernalia; its funding is determined by the Pittman-Robertson Act whereby taxes on sales of hunting licenses, firearms, and ammunition are collected and, according to formula based on these sales, states can be reimbursed up to 75 percent of an approved plan. Thus, DEEP has a clear vested interest in aggressively promoting the sale of hunting licenses and paraphernalia in order to fund its programs.

Dr Anthony DiNicola, a foremost expert on deer herd reduction, advised the Newtown Tick-Borne Disease Action Committee (TBDAC) that effective deer reduction in Newtown will occur only by hiring professional sharpshooters with access to every piece of property in Newtown in perpetuity, and would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. He explicitly stated that increasing controlled hunts (the model DEEP advocates) will reduce deer only to 40–50 deer per square mile. The TBDAC Report and Dr DiNicola’s speaker summary were presented to the Board of Selectmen in October 2011.

For years, many communities in Connecticut and other states have attempted controlled hunting along the lines of the DEEP model. Aside from islands and peninsulas, this approach has been singularly unsuccessful. One town geographically similar to Newtown has evaluated the results of ten years of aggressive townwide controlled hunting efforts (along the lines of the DEEP model). Result: 46 deer per square mile and no decrease in Lyme disease incidence.

DEEP has a vested interest in convincing Connecticut communities that it can help them reduce deer to 10–12 per square mile. Their model has failed repeatedly over years in numerous communities.

Voters should not be led to believe that following the DEEP model will regenerate damage to forests from deer browse or that their risk of tick-borne disease will be decreased. In fact, increasing the level of hunting may increase their risk of developing tick-borne disease based on scientific studies.

So we voters must ask our selectmen at this juncture: What is your goal? If it is to reduce deer population by increasing recreational hunting, and all the evidence available clearly suggests that this will not reduce deer below 40–50 deer per square mile, voters should understand that this will neither decrease their risk of tick-borne disease nor improve forest health.

Marjorie Cramer, MD

38 Huntingtown Road, Newtown                             January 18, 2012