HomeMy WebLinkAboutWritten Comment 12-21-11 PH.pdf Public Hearing on Local Law J
December 21, 2011
David Donner
Viewed realistically the four village elections since March 2008 have been referenda on
deer remediation. All successful candidates in these elections have campaigned for, and
proceeded to act on, the deer remediation program now in progress. In the 2008 and
2009 elections villagers had clear choices between slates which were proactively
engaged in resolving the deer problem vs. slates which stood for passive acceptance of
the damage done by uncontrolled deer proliferation. Passivity was resoundingly
repudiated in both elections. In the 2010 and 2011 elections no credible candidate
opposed the Board's ongoing deer remediation efforts.
What does this tell us? Cayuga Heights is not a colony. Cayuga Heights will not be
coerced by those who do not share our traditions of representative democracy,
governance by consensus and the rule of law.
The conclusion: Village residents overwhelming and enthusiastically support this
Board's actions in regard to the deer. The passage of Local Law J is simply part of the
process.
Open Letter to Trustees of Village of Cayuga Heights December 21,2011
As educators and mental health professionals in Tompkins County,we are extremely concerned that the deer
eradication strategy proposed by the Trustees will endanger the children of this area both physically and
emotionally.
As we understand it,the trustees plan to hire an outside contractor to draw in groups of deer with bait and shoot
them en manse. This shooting will occur in close proximity to family homes.
Carrying out the mass slaughter so close to homes threatens the physical safety of children. Recently,two children
in a daycare center in Michigan were accidentally shot by a deer hunter. Middle school children and teenagers
could find themselves in the line of fire as they hike or explore in the woods throughout Cayuga Heights. We
remain unconvinced that the Cayuga Heights trustees can provide clear and conclusive evidence that their plans
will not result in physical harm to the young people of our community.
The mass killing strategy will also result in emotional harm to many children. In our experience, most children
have strong positive feelings about wildlife and animals, including deer. We have seen the strength of this bond
over many years of working with children. The news of any massive deer kill will quickly pass through the larger
community to children of all ages. The baiting, entrapping, and systematic destruction of a whole population
evokes the horrors of war and will most certainly offend children's sense of fairness. Seeing a wounded deer, blood
trails or other evidence of the killing process may be scarring,especially when the children will know this was not
the result of an accident, but part of a deliberate campaign. Some children will recover in a few days, some in a few
months,and some may be permanently damaged.
How can children be expected to differentiate between the mass killing of a population of large mammals because
they are"inconvenient"and the potential for the killing of their pets, birds, squirrels,themselves? How can
children be expected to be aware of this action but understand that random killing and torturing of living things is
an unacceptable behavior?
An important aspect in child development is the forming of values. Research has shown a strong link between
cruelty to animals and subsequent cruelty to humans. Especially for children who are having difficulty establishing
appropriate behavior,the current plan for deer eradication will confuse children, and reinforce violence and
destruction as suitable actions. We may well be faced with more incidents of harm to vulnerable people, pets and
wildlife in the future, if the planned slaughter of deer takes place.
Decisions by the Cayuga Heights Trustees will profoundly affect the children of Cayuga Heights and the wider
community. Please choose to model the use of reason, compassion and creative alternatives to violence.
As educators and mental health professionals we know how damaging adult decisions and actions can be for
children.
The Trustees have a responsibility to protect our children. We urge you to do so.
Sincerely,
'Caren Chimenta,LicensedClinicaCSocialWorker,
Camille Doucet, art educator andartist
Kathleen'-Cunt, NA(Science Education)
'va£esky,'MA CS% student teacher supervisor,gCSD Elementary Princ paC,elementary and middle school teacher(retired)
Ledie Morningsky - 'thaca City SchooCDistrict elementary school teacher(retired)
ECizabeth(Betsy) Root,'MSW,Ms.Ed.,LicensedCCinicaCSociaCWorker, author
Party Syrague,The Safe ChiCd Project
Charlene T'myk, ?4SW,Licensed Ci nicaCSociaCWorker,
Mary Williams, 'M.Ed.,former elementary andyreschooCteacher
I am speaking out again to the Village Board, but this time it is in regard to the
safety issues of the Local Law J. It has come to my attention that the Village Board has
authorized the purchase of several million dollars of additional liability coverage
connected with the 500 foot rule in regard to shooting deer in a residential area.
Although the Village is protecting itself from resident's personal and property damages ,
it make us feel as if this is an expected outcome of the program. It makes us feel as if
the sharp shooters aren't so sharp.
As a former educator, to help solve problems, continuums were used. At one
end of a continuum is the least drastic change and at the other end--the most drastic. If
this is applied to the deer situation, sterilization falls in the middle.
That, plus the fact that the new fencing ordinance has been approved, why does
the shooting have to occur simultaneously? Why can't the sterilization and the fencing
have time to have an impact before the Village begins to shoot ? If both sterilization and
fencing work, there may be no need to shoot. These two changes need time to have an
impact on the deer population.
Yes, the residents want the reduction of deer but we want to feel safe in our
community.
June Silberman
111 Warwick Place
I'm Karen Kaufmann, 110 Northway Road, in the Village. I'm here at no small personal cost to
register my strong opposition to proposed Local Law J, and to remind the Board of their weighty
public trust as they move ahead with their plan to install hired guns in our neighborhood
backyards.
This is clearly not a matter to be treated lightly, or as a matter of course, as the Board's
explanation for the precipitous and inconvenient scheduling of this hearing suggests. Rather, it
involves a controversial, risky, and untested plan that will change the character and quality of life
of our community for years to come.
So why rush to judgment on Local Law J? Why schedule the only "public hearing"on this
ordinance at a time that is most inconvenient for the public? The Board has had three years of
"remediation"planning to place this ordinance change before the public; while the remediation
plan itself--the one subject to environmental review and embodied in the DEC deer-kill permit--
calls for up to two more years of sterilization before the shooting starts, surely offering ample
time for a full and timely public hearing. So whose timetable and agenda drives the rush? And
what does it say about our community, or the Board,that we have spent two years haggling over
the height and color of fences,yet can give less than two weeks— and in the midst of the busy
holiday season at that-- to public scrutiny of the legal framework for a backyard slaughter
program that appears to give the Board sole discretion in the selection of sites, parameters for
shooting, and provision for notice—if any—to non-consenting neighbors?
Proposed Local Law J clearly raises more questions than it answers.
�� l
I need not remind the Board that these hired killers are not police officers, working in a matrix of
public trust and public duty. Rather,they kill for profit, with their fee—as I understand it—to be
A
based on an hourly rate that will encourage quick work. In their pursuit of the almighty buck,
who will assure that they respect the lives and safety of our children, our animals, passersby, or
even the population of sterile deer that, in concept, form the core of the remediation program?
Who will assure that they remain in the designated slaughter zones, or honor the property and
privacy rights of non-consenting landowners? Who will assure that stray bullets,wounded or
spooked animals, hired guns in hot pursuit, death wagons and the other accoutrements of
slaughter,will not find their way onto my property, or that late night gunshot, bright lights,
barricades,vehicles moving men and bodies will not disturb my family or my peace of mind?
The proposed ordinance is silent on these questions.
And who will hold the contractors accountable, not only to the terms of their contracts with the
Village, but to the values of a community in which a sizeable minority, at least, deplores violence
or sees it, at best, as an option of last resort? These hired guns are folks who boast that they'd as
soon kill deer as brush their teeth. (One can only hope their employment offers a good dental
plan.) Are these the people we, as a community, willingly invite to carry and discharge weapons
in our neighborhoods?
And finally, what recourse will we have if tragic error or accident occurs? You can bet the
Village is taking steps, beyond the broad constraints of municipal immunity,to protect itself
from liability. You can also bet that any contract these hired guns will sign will be framed in
defensive and self-serving terms. So who will act to protect homeowners who harbor the
P�
sharpshooters, or who consent to their presence, from liability for error or damage? Who will
hear or respond to complaints of loss,trespass, personal injury or property damage arising from
sharpshooting or slaughter? Of course,the hired guns claim all shots are to the brain and all
kills are clean, but you need only look at U-tube clips of their work to know that's not the case;
and if you believe them, you might recall a lot of like promises from deepwater oil riggers and
the hydrofracking industry.
So is it moral numbness, or tunnel vision, or wishful thinking that impels the Board to rush this
amendment toward passage? However you justify it, passage will place our community, its
safety, and its character at risk. 1, for one, hope there are second thoughts. Thank you.
December 20,2011
To the Mayor and Board of Trustees:
My husband and I moved to Cayuga Heights 11 years ago because we were attracted to
the peaceful, quiet neighborhood within walking distance of Cornell. At the time, we didn't
realize that there was a"deer problem" in Cayuga Heights because the village was sterilizing the
deer and the herd was kept to a manageable number. We could grow any type of perennial in our
front garden and the deer did not touch them. Then the sterilization program stopped and
gradually the deer proliferated.
Despite what your paid consultant has told you, sterilization does work in controlling the
deer population. It will not turn our peaceful village into a war zone where all the residents have
to be hyper-vigilant so that neither we nor our pets become victims of a stray bullet of a hired
sharpshooter. I urge you to commit the village to sterilizing 60 deer, as was allowed in the
original plan, and evaluate the impact of that on the deer herd. Combined with a new fencing law
and natural attrition, sterilization will allow us to control the deer herd without resorting to lethal
methods. I understand sterilization is expensive so I am offering as a private citizen to help set up
a fund that would collect donations from people who want to pay to sterilize the deer.
If you pass Local Law J,you will destroy everything we love about Cayuga Heights. I
would like you to consider the psychological impact of allowing sharpshooters to kill deer with
firearms at undisclosed locations in the village. I walk my dog about 3 or 4 times a week in the
woods of the old growth forest, off Triphammer Road. How do I know that the sharpshooters
won't mistake my golden retriever,who weighs about 70 pounds, for a deer as she runs across
the field with other dogs we meet in the fields at the end of the wooded path? Some of my dog-
walking friends take their dogs to the fields behind Kendall. I understand you would like to have
deer shooting take place in a gulley in that area. What will be the impact of the shots from
firearms on the senior citizens who live in Kendall?Two years ago,my mother-in-law died in a
nursing home in Ithaca, after having lived there for two years. I know that she would not have
wanted to listen to bullets being fired day after day while she lived out the last years of her life.
What about our children? Once they hear that sharpshooters are shooting guns at deer in hidden
locations,will they be afraid to ride their bikes around the neighborhood?.
None of this is necessary. Please do not pass Local Law J or it will destroy Cayuga
Heights forever. Please give sterilization a chance, and let the citizens work with you to make
that happen. Thank you for your time.
Sherrie Negrea
204 E. Upland Road
Ithaca, NY 14850