Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutKaufman - deerDEISreview.pdfMy name is Karen Kaufmann and I have lived at 110 Northway Road, in the Village of Cayuga Heights, for 20 years. I cannot attend the public hearing on the Deer Remediation DEIS scheduled for December 6, 2010. I submit this statement instead. I am apalled and deeply ashamed that my neighbors in the Village are willing to move ahead with a program of mass slaughter on the flimsy collection of inapt suppositions and unquantified speculations set forth in the DEIS. I would urge the Board to demand additional, local, data collection and quantification before approving this document or proceeding with the program. For instance, the DEIS begins its analysis with a general overview of studies purporting to show the impact of whitetail deer populations in natural-- specifically, forest-- ecosystem regeneration and environmental diversity, with only a small caveat that the Village is not a forest. Yet it goes on to use deer-density criteria drawn from such studies to support the Village’s assessment of the optimal or acceptable deer density in the Village. Clearly, if ecosystem regeneration or environmental diversity is the Village’s goal, as the DEIS and the Village’s supporting EAF both suggest, culling ought to be the penalty for any ecosystem- or diversity- destructive activity-- for instance, when I clear brush from the back portion of my lot, or when the few remaining undeveloped plots in the Village are put up for development, or when we spray pesticides on our unnatural lawns. In addition, on the issue of density, the DEIS is upfront in pointing out that a deer population enumeration is difficult if not impossible to obtain. Nonetheless, it goes on to premise the need for and impacts of mass culling on repeated references to excess population density, based on projection from a 4-year-old “count” based on population modelling. The projection may or may not be accurate, especially for the 2010 season, when folks in the Village have repeatedly observed that there seemed to be fewer fawns and fewer multiples than in previous years. The bottom line is, however, that the impact of the culling proposal on the deer and on the rest of our Village environment cannot be accurately gauged without at least some current population count or data-based modelling, if only to know how many deer must be killed, how much shooting must be done, how many days or nights of gunshot and neighborhood police stake-outs we must endure, how much waste must be disposed of, how many truckloads of personnel, equipment, and waste must traverse Village streets and for how many years in order to achieve ephemeral “stability” of the deer population. Beyond that, if ecosystem preservation or environmental diversity is the Village’s goal, isn’t it ironic to find that, for the three identified “unique natural areas” remaining in the Village, no enumeration of species, no quantification or any other measure of deer damage, and no analysis of the impact of culling, has been undertaken or assigned? We are talking about mass slaughter of close to 200 deer, at a cost of $1 million over a period of five years, purportedly to maintain environmental diversity, with no data to even suggest that such diversity actually exists, is threatened, or will be impacted here in our well-manicured Village or its residual unique natural areas. A similar lack of data or data analysis is evident in discussions of Lyme disease, deer-vehicle accidents, and the alleged problem of “untreated waste.” Notably, the Board, in its EAF, pointed to information from the American Lyme Disease Foundation acknowledging that Lyme is actually percolated by mice, although transmitted long distance by deer, and that effective Lyme control would entail a reduction in mouse population and/or the use of tick pesticides to reduce Lyme incidence; while the DEIS, touting the prospect of Lyme control, relies on a precis of studies actually concluding that Lyme control through deer culling remains inconclusive with regard to human disease, and/or demonstrating that such control is most compelling where captive deer populations are involved. There are no statistics offered for Lyme disease incidence in the Village; and even Tompkins County statistical reports, while warning that Lyme can be contracted in the County, continue to suggest that the reported incidence does not necessarily reflect locally-acquired tick bites. It is sheer speculation to suggest that killing 200 deer will prevent Lyme disease locally, particularly as the Village boundaries are permeable and deer abound in the surrounding areas. Likewise with automobile accidents: while the DEIS does cite to statistics for 2003-2008, it does not analyze them by year, or by location, or by reporting protocols, to identify any upward trending or any correlation with traffic, speed, or terrain. In addition, the DEIS use of correlate statistics for the Village reporting category of deer-related “incidents” is suspect, as the DEIS misinterprets the category, describing such “incidents” as instances where, although no vehicle is present, the police must shoot an injured deer; whereas Chief Boyce clearly explained, in reports to the Board during the Board’s preliminary environmental assessment, that “incidents” included all deer-related complaints, not necessarily vehicle-related nor necessarily involving the shooting of an animal. Can an assessment of the beneficial impact of the culling plan for drivers really rest on such a poverty or misinterpretation of data or analysis? And on the alleged problem of untreated waste entering the local watershed, there is no quantification of current deer-related waste production, nor any environmental analysis of the contribution of deer scat to water quality relative to other waste, nor, apparently, any concern about the infusion of lime-treated deer guts into the waste stream in the remote location where the waste will be trucked, or about the environmental costs of trucking waste away from the bait sites and out of the Village. Anyway, if deer scat poses a waste-stream threat sufficient to justify mass slaughter, as the DEIS implies, then let’s put a comparable death warrant out for commercial pesticide operations, for rabbits and crow, geese and coyote, and other wild waste producers, for those dog owners whose canine feces rot in our yards and along our sidewalks. Notably, although the DEIS purports to address alternatives to the Board’s culling plan, it does not discuss any non-invasive alternative besides the “do-nothing” option. Yet for concerns with collisions, ticks, and vegetation, there are clear non-lethal non-invasive options that the Village could implement at minimal cost– from speed reduction/enforcement and reflective lightposts to a revised fencing ordinance that would address the concerns of gardeners and homeowners much more efficiently and at lower cost to the taxpayers than a large-scale population control program. Likewise, the DEIS analysis of a sterilization-only alternative quickly writes off that option as too protracted– with a three to five year trajectory-- to meet Village stabilization goals, ignoring completely the evidence that the Village’s previous sterilization program saw a marked decline in population in the two or three years it was in operation, that plans for culling have given rise to nearly three years of conflict and controversy in the current go-round alone, that the current plan’s own projections call for one to two years of sterilization and five years of culling and maintenance operations thereafter, and that in other communities a commitment to culling, once begun, is unending. Unlike the non-invasive options for highway safety and property-protection, or even the non-lethal option of sterilization for deer population control, the Village’s culling plan will bring long-term and pervasive change to our community– from the five-plus years of shooting that it is projected to entail (as noted above, other communities have found that their initial short-term projections continue to drag on), in backyards and neighborhoods that will be off-limits to residents, neighbors and passers-by for the duration of operations, at times and places that will be unannounced (despite the DEIS promise of “constant communication between [sic] community members, municipal officials and the culling agent” during shooting operations), with the sounds of gunshot, struggle, and painful death becoming a feature of our daily life for unspecified periods each shooting season. I will most certainly not be allowing such operations to occur within 500 feet of my home. Moreover, as an all-weather, all-hours walker along Village streets, I am concerned about the plan’s clear– but scantily addressed– impact on pedestrian and roadway safety and peace of mind, and on the pattern of daily life in the Village, particularly if shooting sites are unannounced. I am also concerned about the polarization of our community around this issue, particularly as the Board continues to blame “outside agitators” for opposition to the culling plan and gives scant heed to the number or deep-seated concerns of resident opponents. I am concerned about the message we send our children in the Village in looking first to violent population-control measures to address issues that revolve largely around our own convenience or desires; and about the image and public perception of our community, as we opt to spend millions on violent deer control while the county, the state, and the national economy are in a phase of deep cutback and human suffering. I implore the Board to look as deeply at these impacts as at the speculative prospect of an easy life without deer offered by the DEIS, and govern yourself accordingly. Thank you.