Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutColb, S; Dorf, M; Hockett, R; Shiffrin, S; Underkuffler, L DEIS.pdf Village of Cayuga Heights Board of Trustees Cayuga Heights Ithaca, NY 14850 December 13, 2010 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Regarding Deer Population Control We are five members of the faculty of Cornell Law School and all residents of Ithaca, two of us living in Cayuga Heights. We write in our individual capacities as citizens, informed by our knowledge of the law. We wish to express dismay with the draft environmental impact statement ("DEIS") regarding the current plan to slaughter most of the deer in Cayuga Heights. New York law requires that an environmental impact statement"must analyze the significant adverse impacts and evaluate all reasonable alternatives" [6 NYCRR 617.9(b)(1)]. For four chief reasons, we believe that the DEIS fails this basic requirement. 1. The DEIS parades assertions but does not provide adequate support on such vital matters as the determination of the current deer population of Cayuga Heights based on a reliable field study, the acquisition of community-specific biodiversity data, the analysis of the likelihood that deer will migrate into Cayuga Heights from surrounding areas, or the likely impact of contraception with vaccine or surgical sterilization, relaxing the fencing ordinance, or the combination of these and other non- lethal alternative methods of reducing the level of deer-human impact. The EIS thus lists alternatives, but in violation of state law, it fails seriously to consider those alternatives. Further,the very choice to define the goal of the action itself as being to reduce the deer population, rather than to reduce the impact of deer-human conflict, appears to be a device used to avoid responsibility for taking a "hard look" at the numerous non-lethal alternatives, some of which, such as a more flexible fencing ordinance, are being successfully used in neighboring municipalities. In the Environmental Assessment Form (Appendix A of the DEIS), the examination of viable alternatives with demonstrably lower negative impacts is repeatedly circumvented by the circular declaration that "any modification of the plan would result in not lowering the deer population, which is the goal of the action." With due respect, the issue at hand is not a widespread objection amongst the citizenry to the very existence of the deer, but to the impact caused by conflicts with the deer. By reducing the alleged problem to "too many deer," the DEIS opens the door to sidestepping the need to analyze and quantify the various dimensions of deer-human conflict and of proposed solutions. Doing so would lead to a more realistic understanding of the issue, a more meaningful evaluation of alternatives, and a more effective evaluation of the success or failure of the program, all of which would serve the underlying purposes of our state's environmental laws and the best interests of the community. Statement of Five Cornell Law Professors Page 2 2. The DEIS nowhere considers the impact on the deer themselves. It calls the "net and bolt" method of slaughter a form of"euthanasia,"a particularly odd term to describe the killing of healthy animals. As for the method itself, even those who practice it admit that it causes great suffering and therefore cannot plausibly be termed "humane." The DEIS does not consider the evidence that captive bolts fired at netted deer frequently miss their target, causing prolonged deaths. Moreover, the plan is inherently cruel, both to those animals targeted for unnecessary slaughter and to those marked for survival who will be forced to watch their herd-mates systematically massacred in front of them, whether the killing is carried out with firearms or captive-bolt devices. Exacerbating this cruelty is the fact that it will be repeated, year after year, and will thus subject large numbers of gentle living beings to terrible physical pain, emotional agony, and death. 3. Numerous people in our community have publicly expressed the pain and anxiety that they feel at the prospect of individual deer whom they have come to know being violently killed. Some of the people likely to be traumatized by the violent plan will be children. Others may be those with pre-existing mental health conditions connected to previous exposure to violence that could be exacerbated through inadvertent witnessing the sights or sounds of the killing process or even by knowledge of being in close proximity to locations where mass killing is being carried out. The DEIS callously dismisses such actual traumatization as mere"community controversy,"which, it states "is not a criteria [sic] for determining significance." Yet the emotional wellbeing of community residents is an aspect of"human health"that must be specifically and objectively assessed in the DEIS. "Human health" is expressly included in SEQRA's definition of"environment." [See 6 NYCRR 617.2(l).] Additionally, "the creation of a hazard to human health" is listed in the SEQR regulations as an "indicator of significant adverse impacts on the environment." [See 6 NYCRR 617/7(c)(1)(vii).] 4. Discharging deadly weapons in close proximity to homes and roadways— as the deer-killing plan entails—poses danger to the people of our community. It is impossible to eliminate this danger completely, and it will affect more people than those who reside in the village, including those who live in neighboring municipalities as well as those who drive through the village's many roadways. The precise location of the killing will apparently remain undisclosed; the DEIS lists it as the entire Village of Cayuga Heights. Thus, people in the vicinity will be unable to protect themselves and their loved ones—both human and nonhuman—from potential harm. A bullet meant for an innocent deer can foreseeably wound and kill an innocent human, dog, cat, or other fellow inhabitant of this generally peaceful village, town, and city. Hence, we encourage the trustees to step back and reassess the likely long-term effects of the proposed deer-slaughter plan on both Cayuga Heights and the larger Ithaca community. The trustees have a final opportunity now to bring us all together with a creative, non-violent solution, and we hope they take it. Should the trustees proceed with implementing the currently proposed plan, we Statement of Five Cornell Law Professors Page 3 will continue to express our opposition and encourage others to do the same. Should a legal challenge become necessary, we will lend our support to it. The current deer- slaughter plan would damage our community for many years to come. There is still time to reconsider, and in doing so, preserve the good will and sense of unity our community will doubtless need in the challenging times ahead. Respectfully, Sherry olb Professor of Law and Charles Evans Hughes Scholar, Cornell University* Michael C. Dorf Robert S. Stevens Professor of Law, Cornell University` Robert C. Hockett Professor of Law, Cornell University* Steven H. Shiffrin Charles Frank Reavis Sr. Professor of Law, Cornell University* Laura Underkuttler J. DuPratt White Professor of Law, Cornell University* . Titles and affiliation listed for identification purposes only.