Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCayugaDeer section 3.pdf Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS.Community Response Hazel Brampton, MSW(p_30-31)-Page 30 Ithaca, NY 14850 December 15, 2010 Village of Cayuga Heights 836 Hanshaw Road Ithaca, New York 14850 To: Mayor Kate Sopron and the Village Board of Trustees Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Deer Management Plan I speak as a retired psychotherapist who is a Tompkins County native and who has lived just over the border of Cayuga Heights in the Town of Ithaca for almost 50 years. During my 26-year career in the mental health profession, I worked at the Tompkins County Mental Health Clinic for about 5 years, at Family and Children's Service for more than 5 years, and 6 years in the Ithaca City School System. Throughout my clinical experience, including private practice, I have worked with many victims of domestic violence. In the 1970's I co-founded Displaced Homemakers, now called The Women s Opportunity Center, a social service organization created to provide emotional and practical support and training to women left alone following divorce, separation or widowhood. During a period of work in California, I supervised a program on women and employment at Resources for Women. Throughout my career I have had an interest in and focus on helping people overcome emotional damage caused by exposure to different forms of violence. As a lover of human beings, as well as other creatures of nature, I am speaking up to encourage intelligent thought in the current struggle to live with white tailed deer in the Cayuga Heights area. I and many others have come to meetings to share our thoughts on this issue, where sensible and well-informed voices called for alternative manners of reducing conflict between deer and humans. But the Cayuga Heights village board of trustees has decided, to my knowledge, to kill the bulk of the deer herd —this without any serious research into non-lethal options. Now, I have recently learned, it seems this will be done in a thoroughly vicious manner described as "net and bolt" killing. Plunging ahead with violence in defiance of both science and ethics appalls me. In a setting filled with intelligent and well-educated people, there are apparently some who value flowers and bushes untouched above beautiful sentient beings who were, of course, here before us all. I found in the village's Draft Environmental Impact Statement little discussion of the significance of the impact the proposed killing program will have on the people of this community. On page 5 it is stated, "While the culling of deer, as proposed by the Village, may be experienced as a potential significant impact to the social conscience of a portion of the VCH community, under the rules of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, community controversy is not criteria for determining significance." I agree that this killing program is going to impact the conscience of many people, not just in Cayuga Heights, but in the entire Ithaca area, and perhaps beyond. But to conclude that conscience is the same as controversy is incorrect. While this certainly is a matter that should weigh upon our consciences, it is also a significant question of mental health, on both a community level and individual level. The village board is Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS:Community Response Hazel Brampton,MSW(p. 30-31)-Page 31 obligated to closely and objectively assess the human health implications of the proposed plan. As a mental health professional, I am deeply concerned about the impact of this killing program on children. The lesson we teach them by carrying out mass killing of innocent wild creatures in our backyards, particularly in the manner planned, is that only human beings matter, that any creature who gets in our way can be struck down without care. And that the suffering of the creatures of this earth doesn't count as much as our often superficial wants and whims. Thus we teach them the wrong lesson for living. It continues the myth that violence is the answer to problems, and it will certainly cast a shadow on their still developing inner lives. I am also concerned about both children and adults in our community who so deeply enjoy connections of various sorts with the deer. Some folks love to take beautiful pictures of them, others wait by windows for their daily visit, some have given names to their four-legged neighbors and consider them family. The experience of witnessing, or just knowing about, the wanton slaying of these defenseless animals, will, in my professional opinion, bring about damaging trauma for many in the village and the nearby municipalities that comprise the Ithaca community, where programs of this sort do not reflect our community values. A woman who has been physically abused may, for example, easily suffer renewed Post-Traumatic Stress (PTSD) symptoms upon exposure to this sort of violence, as may a child who has previously suffered abuse at the hand of a parent, even those among us who are just a little more empathic or who are experiencing a period of vulnerability, the same. Violence is not forgotten in the heart or head, and under the right conditions, can leave a lasting mark on any of us. I know that some people are so disturbed by just the thought of this killing program that they are considering moving out of our community if it is enacted. How can this not be considered significant by the trustees of Cayuga Heights? I speak today not just as someone with professional expertise in the treatment of the traumas caused by violence, but also a resident of a neighborhood close by Cayuga Heights, where a small herd of deer roam freely during winter and summer. This plan to use bait to lure deer to their fearful and painful death appalls and frightens me. Many of the individual deer I see every day and recognize on sight will almost certainly be drawn into Cayuga Heights and to their deaths. Each one is an important part of our beautiful milieu, and most of us value them as such. How can I put it? If the deer are taken from us in this cruel and thoughtless way, our world will darken and lose much beauty and interest. We won't see tiny fawns gamboling on the lawn or suckling their mothers. We won't be able to show our children and grandchildren a part of the world that adds to their experience and wonderment. Whether or not we endure the personal trauma of our neighborhood deer friends being lured into Cayuga Heights and slaughtered, many others in our community certainly will, and the lesson learned will damage children and adults throughout Ithaca for a long time to come. The lesson? "If you don't like your neighbor, go straight to violence. Killing is the answer to problems." What the Village trustees fail to understand is when we do harm to others, we are planting the seeds of violence and injustice for the future. For our own well being, we need a new answer. Hazel Brill Brampton, Cornell AB '46, Smith MSW '49 Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DENS:Community Response Sandip Tiwan, PhD(p.32-36)-Page 32 Page 1 of S Sandip Tiwari Ithaca, NY 14850 Dec. 10, 2010 Village of Cayuga Heights Board of Trustees Cayuga Heights, Ithaca, NY 14850 Subject: Comments and Feedback on Deer Management Plan for Cayuga Heights, DEIS, and Dec. 6 Public Hearing This note is a follow-on to the Dec. 6 Public Hearing, a reading of the DEIS report, and observations and personal opinions on the Deer Culling Plan. I write it as an eleven year resident of Cayuga Heights in the expectation that the trustees are listening before making important decisions and that the process undertaken to this point is not just a perfunctory fulfillment of state requirements. I will end with sharing what my own personal inclinations, values, morals and ethics tell me, but first a few comments on some of the factual elements of the effort to date. The comments that follow are based in part on the expertise I have gained in the application of the scientific methods in a career spanning 30+years, nearly two decades as a research scientist at IBM Research and recent 11 years of education and research carried out in my capacity as Charles N. Mellowes Professor in Engineering at Cornell and as Director of the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network. Data and Records as reflected in the DEIS a. It is very problematic that there are no year by year statistics with error margins on deer population provided in the main body of the DEIS'. From what I understand, such data is available from field studies carried out for the 2000 through 2006 period (from 2000, with a range of 170-210 deer to 2006, estimated at 147 deer with a range of 124-176). Based on the information included in the DEIS, we cannot know with any confidence if the current deer population is smaller or larger than it was in 2006. The current population should have been determined using a field study, as in previous years. As it is, in what way does the estimated population in 2010, in the same range as the population in 2000, reflect such a major change from the past that it should spur drastic action? ' See Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS Executive Summary: page 1-1 Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS:Community Response Sandip Tiwan,, PhD(p.32-36)-Page 33 Page 2 of 5 b. The DEIS should include detailed information on the range of travel of local deer. If most of the village's deer are to be killed, the DEIS should include an accurate analysis of how many new deer are likely to come into Cayuga Heights due to migration. This is important since animals travel, and short range and long range impact in time and space are central to environmental modeling. Population changes and diffusion are critical in this discussion. It is a serious flaw that this fundamental issue is not addressed. c. Lyme disease, a bacterial disease, is carried by ticks, and there are numerous tick vectors besides deer—all vertebrates. Lyme disease exists in a variety of regions where there are no deer, and it does not always exist in regions where deer are present. I see no statistics in the DEIS on the incidence of Lyme disease in this community2. Studies point out that mice and rats are the principal way by which Lyme disease ticks are distributed, at least in the northeastern United States, and killing deer has little to do with controlling the role these kinds of animals play in Lyme disease transmission. If Lyme disease is a true matter of any concern here, the DEIS should make a point of addressing the population of mice and rats, and not deer. d. Biodiversity is a term used entirely inappropriately in this DEIS report 3. Biodiversity encompasses measures of both flora and fauna, and no Cayuga Heights statistics at all are provided in the DEIS for past or present levels of either. Household plantings cannot be considered part of this biodiversity; these are largely foreign plants brought in by community members and many of these plants are quite inappropriately matched to the local climate. e. No year by year statistics are provided for the number of deer-vehicle collisions°. It would be important to know how the number of deer-vehicle collisions change year to year and where clusters of accidents occurred to identify patterns and also to know the speed limit in these locations, as well as how often the accidents were associated with violation of the current speed limit. The DEIS should include the percentage of drivers who have been charged with violating the 30 mph or other even lower speed limits in this community. f. While a survey of residents is included from a decade agos, no current statistics are provided regarding the opinions and wishes of local residents. Do the people of Cayuga Heights really want the mass killing of deer by net and bolt? Do they want 'See Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS Project Description:page 2-10 'Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS Project Description:page 2-3 'Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS Existing Conditions, page 3-3 5 Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS Appendx B:Preliminary Situation Analysis From a Survey of Residents March 1999 Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS:Community Response Sandip Tiwari, PhD(p.32-36)-Page 34 Page 3 of 5 deer to be sterilized, or do they want them to be left alone? When was the last survey and what did it say? How can such an important decision be made without knowing more about community attitudes? In sum, this DEIS has little that stands up to even the most basic scientific scrutiny, and almost nothing in way of verified factual information. How can an educated community like ours accept such an abjectly insufficient document for which $12,000 of taxpayer money was spent? Cayuga Heights rules and ordinances and their relationship to deer-human conflict a. As an avid gardener, I fail to understand the arguments regarding the negative impact of deer on gardening 6. Through the use of fencing and careful choice in plantings our family has had no problems with deer for many years. Even our vegetable gardens have faced no problems. b. Allowing people to have higher fences if they want to have plants attractive to deer would remove the biggest source of deer-human conflict in Cayuga Heights. It is a serious flaw that fencing in not seriously evaluated in the DEIS since it is a cheap, sustainable and an effective long term alternative to the annual mass killing of deer'. c. Be stricter about the 30 mph limits. If people have accidents with deer driving at this speed or lower, I would wonder more about the driver's capabilities than about the number of deer in the village. For those speeding, of course, driver reaction time is often inadequate. Speeders should be ticketed for breaking traffic laws. d. Introduce policies that encourage the biodiversity that the DEIS pays such a lip service to and ends up misinterpreting$. Encourage a greater diversity of local species in people's yards and elsewhere by encouraging planting of as many native species as possible. e. Introduce village-wide education program about Lyme disease prevention and early detection, which would be far more effective than killing deer.This is the practice in many communities in Northeast United States and a recommended practice by health sources. This is what was practiced in Westchester County from where we moved to Ithaca. Simple changes in rules and ordinances would protect homeowners' properties and, over time, likely reduce the deer population by reducing the food supply through an increase in fenced in areas. It appears that a variance was recently given to a village trustee for an illegal fence. It is hard to see the logic or comprehend why the rest of the village doesn't s Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS Existing Conditions, page 3-6 'Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS Project Description:page 2-9 s Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS Project Description:page 2-3 Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DENS:Community Response Sandip Dwari, PhD(p.32-36)-Page 35 Page 4 of 5 have the same courtesy in the use of fences. Greatly restricted fencing in location and in height makes it hard for those who want to protect their plants needlessly increasing the level of deer-human conflict. Being Humane in Cayuga Heights a. In the DEIS it is stated that the killing "may be experienced as a potential significant impact to the social conscience of a portion of the VCH community." This one sentence does not at all represent a serious examination of the negative impact of this killing program on the character of our community9. Our elected representatives have responsibility for the well-being of the community and for responsible use of our taxpayer dollars. This means that they must be respectful of the diverse population that resides here and take seriously any act's impact on the physical and psychological health of those in our community— not just Cayuga Heights, but our whole community including the Town and City of Ithaca and Cornell. This includes trauma connected to acts of killing— both on children and on those who find the mass killing of our backyard deer morally repugnant. b. This program has already polarized the community, and it is the responsibility of elected representatives to choose a course of action that assures that civilized behavior prevails, laws are followed, and that conduct is ethically and morally correct. c. Democracy is not dictatorship of majority but involves acting in a way that morally and ethically reflects the values and will of the people. Why is there is no information available anywhere on the will of the people on this issue? Do our residents really want a mass-killing of deer in our backyards by net and bolt, or do they want deer to be made infertile, or do they want them to be left alone? Do they want killing and a divided community, or fences and a community at peace? d. Our elected representatives should take a hard look at the opinions being expressed by our citizens. There are people on both sides of this issue. It is the responsibility of the representatives to develop an informed understanding through collection of factual data on many topics such as the deer population, biodiversity, community attitudes and all possible solutions, and following that, finding a peaceful and legal means by which problems can be addressed. Personal Ethics and Values a. Our family moved to Cayuga Heights attracted by the combination of Cornell University and the values we thought this community represented—a local and global view of the world we inhabit and affect through our actions. We believe in non-violent means of solving problems and conflicts and in raising children and educating students to be 9 Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS Executive Summary. page 1-5 Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS.Community Response Sandip Tiwari,PhD(p. 32-36)-Page 36 Page 5 of 5 civilized humans aware and acting responsibly as one of the large diversity of species who inhabit this planet. b. I am a native of India, a country that at the time of my birth was a young country that achieved its freedom from multiple centuries of colonialism and foreign domination, similar in many ways as the independence of United States nearly two centuries before that of India. We grew up in a Gandhian tradition, of civil disobedience, that was so powerfully practiced here by Martin Luther King in the civil rights movement even when significant popular opinion and governance was against it. The approach insists on truth, openness, and ethics and values guided by a moral force and use of non-violent means of civil resistance. These are the values we have practiced and taught our children. These are the values that guide actions of our life.The world, and United States, would be a far more pleasant, humane and livable place if we practiced these values of a civilized society, rather than polarization and violence that has become pervasive. For us, this is our religion and our spiritual way. And practice of this locally is an essential part of a society all connected together living in harmony. c. We love the deer that come to the yard, and have known a deer with an ear tag labeled #138 now for a couple of years. She gave birth to two fawns this spring in our yard and that was an expansion for us of our family of whom they are a part and a source of immense love and pleasure. The psychological and personal impact of their unnatural death by any means can scarcely be imagined. My wife and I shudder and cry at the mere imagining of the event, and it is even worse considering my own local government intends to use our own tax dollars to carry out this injustice. We are resolved that if such acts of wanton violence comes to pass, we will leave this community. It does not represent our values, morals, and ethics. Fortunately for us and others like us, the world provides many options for graceful living at peace with our surroundings. We are not alone in this thought. The trustees have heard serious objections to the planned pogrom with passion. My colleagues at work that live in Cayuga Heights and numerous neighbors have expressed similar opinions. Departures from Cayuga Heights based on ethical objections will certainly change the character of the community in ways few would want. Submitted in the hope that the representatives are truly listening and will act morally in fulfilling their responsibilities towards the community, rather than merely pretending to be listening. Sandip Tiwari Resident of Cayuga Heights, and Charles N. Mellowes.Professor in Engineering at Cornell University Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DENS.,Community Response Stein, LaVeck, Huang(p. 37-49)-Page 37 December 16, 2010 To: Cayuga Heights Mayor and Board of Trustees Comments on Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Our names are Jenny Stein, James LaVeck and Eric Huang. We are all residents of Ithaca and we are offering our comments on the DEIS in our capacity as concerned citizens and on the basis of knowledge we have gained through our attendance at, and videotaping of, over 35 meetings of the Cayuga Heights Board of Trustees, all the public meetings of the Deer Remediation Advisory Commit- tee, all the SEQRA meetings regarding the deer issue, and every public forum held on the deer issue since the existence of a government-sponsored plan to kill most of the deer of Cayuga Heights came into public awareness in August of 2008. Since that time, we have attended meetings to observe, to record documentary footage, and to express our opposition to such a killing plan, which inspired us to found a citizen's group called CayugaDeer.org. By profession, we are documentary filmmakers and educators who specialize in subject matter related to the journey of awakening conscience and the ethics of the human-animal relationship. Issue #1: Request for correction of misinformation propagated by the Village government that significantly impacts the ability of the public to make accurate assessments of alternatives that may have less negative environmental impact than the proposed deer killing plan. At the October 28, 2009 public hearing held to solicit community feedback on the Draft Deer Reme- diation Plan, I, James LaVeck, spoke during the allotted time and then handed in to the trustees the document reproduced on the following pages, which is self-explanatory. Following submission of this document, through my start-to-finish attendance at every meeting of the trustees since that time, I was quite surprised not to see any evidence that the information put forth in this document was either investigated or acted upon by the trustees, or that steps were taken to correct the significant misinfor- mation that, in my opinion, was propagated amongst the public as a result of the situation described below. On August 25, 2010, 1 filed a Freedom of Information Law Request to assess the status of the con- cerns that I and many other citizens had submitted for the record, both orally and in writing, at the 10/28/09 SEQRA hearing. Once again, none of the many documents my videotape record showed being handed in to the trustees at this hearing were returned in response to this request, increasing my concern. Finally, on On November 12, 2010, through another Freedom of Information request, I resubmitted the document below and requested any documentation indicating that the information it brought to light had since been investigated or acted upon by the trustees. Once again, to my sur- prise, no such documents were returned by the village. Therefore, I am now bringing this matter to the attention of the trustees for the third time, and re- questing once again that they investigate the validity of this information. Should they confirm it to be accurate, I am requesting they take immediate action to correct the substantial and significant mis- information that has been propagated amongst the people of this community as a result, such propa- gation having occurred, for example, through a mailing sent out by the Deer Remediation Advisory Committee in March of 2009 summarizing various options for addressing deer-human conflict. I also hope that the trustees will take seriously the implications of this in terms of the validity of the informa- tion upon which their currently proposed plan is based. I Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS:Community Response Stein,LaVeck,Huang(p. 37-49)-Page 38 Originally submitted 10-28-09 at VCH SEQRA Hearing on Draft Deer Remediation Plan The SEQR process was created with the intent to facilitate informed decision making, and the clear requirement that decision makers take a "hard look' at alternatives with less environmental impact than the proposed plan of action.This requires access to qualified experts who can be trusted to supply accurate information about complex issues.When information offered by experts is misleading or inaccurate,the effect in the integrity of the decision-making process and especially the environmental review process can be devastating. As documented in video record, on November 20, 2008, Dr. Paul Curtis,a professor with Cornell University's Natural Resources Department,made a presentation at a public meeting of the Cayuga Heights Deer Remediation Advisory Committee (DRAC). During this presentation he discussed his previous involvement in a deer population reduction program in Cayuga Heights and offered his analysis of various options for addressing the Cayuga Heights trustees' desire to reduce the current population of deer in Cayuga Heights. During this presentation,which included projection of slides and photos, Dr. Curtis also answered questions from trustees, members of the DRAC,and members of the public. At the time of Dr. Curtis's presentation, members of the DRAC were comparing several potential methods of reducing the deer population in Cayuga Heights, including sterilization,immunocontraception, and killing. It was during his comments on the costs and efficacy of immunocontraception methods used successfully for two large scale management oriented deer contracepive projects, that Dr. Curtis made numerous statements whose accuracy has come under question.The numerous inaccuracies in Dr. Curtis's presentation had the cumulative effect of making it appear that the immunocontraception methods described for these two projects were grossly more expensive and grossly less effective than they have been documented to be in peer-reviewed publications that are quite well- known in the wildlife management field. These inaccuracies take on real significance in the context of Dr. Curtis's role as the principle scientific expert consulted by the trustees,and the central role played by Dr. Curtis's theories in the development of the trustee's proposed plan. In response to Dr. Curtis's remarks at this November 20, 2008 presentation,we have reviewed the published literature and have sent Dr. Curtis's remarks to Dr.Jay Kirkpatrick, one of the scientists who had significant involvement with both of the above mentioned deer contraceptive projects. We requested that Dr. Kirkpatrick respond to each remark. With some reluctance he agreed to do this with the understanding that he is not advocating any form of management at Cayuga Heights. As a condition for responding to these remarks, he also made it perfectly clear that, while he has no interest in the Cayuga Heights issues, he does have an interest in making clear that deer contraception has been successful and that the real issues are social, cultural, economic and political,but not scientific. We chose Dr. Kirkpatrick from among several scientists who could have done this review because of his extensive experience with wildlife contraception over a 40 year period. 2 Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS:Community Response Stein, LaVeck, Huang(p. 37-49)-Page 39 Originally submitted 10-28-09 at VCH SEQRA Hearing on Draft Deer Remediation Plan If the scientific expert upon whose research, consultation and advice the trustees based their plan presented information this inaccurate about an alternative approach with a lower cost and lower environmental impact than the one the trustees adopted with Dr Curtis's advice, and if Cornell research programs connected to Dr. Curtis are slated to receive over$270,000 dollars of funding from the Village of Cayuga Heights under the plan he helped develop, are the trustees not obligated to reconsider their entire plan as well as question the validity of all claims made and information supplied by Dr. Curtis? James LaVeck City of Ithaca 3 Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS:Community Response Stein. LaVeck. Huang(p. 37-49)-Page 40 Originally submitted 10-28-09 at VCH SEQRA Hearing on Draft Deer Remediation Plan Dr. Kirkpatric responds to representations made by Dr. Paul Curtis To whom it may concern: Below are excerpts from the video transcript of Dr. Curtis's 11-08 presentation to the Cayuga Heights Deer Remediation Advisory Committee. My comments on relevant transcript excerpts are in red, while Dr. Curtis's and other event participant's comments are in blue. Cayuga Heights Mayor Gilmore: in what communities has sterilization worked? Dr. Paul Curtis: Depends how you define "worked." Mayor Gilmore: measurably lowered deer populations to tolerable levels? (Note:based on Dr. Curtis's reply, it is clear he understood Mayor Gilmore to be asking about immunocontraception, not sterilization) Dr. Curtis: None that I'm aware of. Okay, the two studies that are often touted as the ]makes air quotes with his hands] "success stories" for immunocontraception are Fire Island National Seashore, out on Long Island —they've done an immunocontraception program out there with PZP for about 10 years, and they have suppressed the growth, the population growth has been lowered dramatically. Numbers, depending on how you look at the data, are maybe slightly down, but not a huge amount. Dr. Kirkpatrick comments:See Rutberg and Naugle, 2008. Population-level effects of immunocontraception in white-tailed deer. Wildl. Res. 35:494-501. This published paper reports on a 60+e decline in the deer population on Fire Island communities where immunocontraception has been used for 16 years, not ten years as Dr. Curtis stated. 60+ % is a "huge"amount by anyone's standard. Dr. Curtis: The way they census deer out there — I've got some questions on their numbers, they do browse, pellet surveys, and that whole method is questionable to start with —that's what they're using. Dr. Kirkpatrick comments: On the Fire Island project the population study work was carried out by Brian Underwood, of the USGS at Syracuse, using distance sampling methods, not the methods described by Dr. Curtis. Dr. Curtis: So, at least they suppressed the herd, but they haven't really reduced it. They've still got way more deer on the landscape than they want, after 10 years of the program and spending well over a million dollars out there. Dr. Kirkpatrick comments:Again, 60+ % reductions were documented in peer-reviewed 4 Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS:Community Response Stein, LaVeck, Huang(p. 37-49)-Page 41 Originally submitted 10-28-09 at VCH SEQRA Hearing on Draft Deer Remediation Plan FN blications. No population goals were ever set for the Fire Island project, by the NPS or e Dept. of Commerce for a second project at the National Institute of Standards and chnology (NISI), in MD. . Who then, is the "they"Dr. Curtis referred to as having "way ore deer on the landscape than they want?Certainly not the citizens of Fire Island ational Sea Shore. The costs at the Fire Island Sea Shore Project, which I directly tracked myself for the first two years of the project('93 and '94), never exceeded ,510,000 for each year. There is simply no factual basis that a million dollars was spent. Dr. Curtis: The other place they cite as a success is the National institute of Technology and Standards [sic] down in Virginia [sic]. There's a semi-captive herd in fence. again PZP (an immunocontraception vaccine used by Dr. Kirkpatrickl was used for many years. There's actually some relatively good data, the deer numbers were reduced a bit there. But again, there's still more than the goal density. Mayor Gilmore: They're fenced in? Dr. Curtis: They're — at least part of the facility is fenced. Mayor Gilmore: Part of it. Audience member: 1Vl1here was that? Dr. Curtis: The National Institute of Technology and Standards. I think it's Front Royal, Virginia. Dr. Kirkpatrick comments: NIST is located in Gaithersburg, MD, about 90 miles from Front Royal. It is the typical urban deer situation, with highways, dense residential areas and continued commercial development surrounding it. The herd at NIST can leave or enter the facility at will through the many gates. One buck, for example, showed up at Dulles Airport, 40 miles away. Hence, in this context, the use of the term semi-captive is extremely misleading. The use of this term ignores fundamental white-tail deer social organization and behavior. These animals live in matriarchal family units and if they are not harassed and adequate nutrition is available, will spend their entire lives in a one- half to one square mile area. But their doing so does not make them 'semi-captive'. Deer Committee Chair Kate Supron: What's the life expectancy or a doe, if they're not hit by a car? Dr. Curtis: At least 12 years, some will get a little bit older. Se that's, again, why we don't see the imrnunocontraceptive vaccine as being a good .solution, because that rneans we're going to have to handle that deer six or eight times in her lifetime — minimum -- to shut down her reproduction. That's why you're better off doing the spay the first time and not have to worry about it for 12 years. 5 Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS:Community Response Stein, LaVeck,Huang(p. 37-49)-Page 42 Originally submitted 10-28-09 at VCH SEQRA Hearing on Draft Deer Remediation Plan Dr. Kirkpatrick comments: Immunocontraception was developed with a goal of no handling of the animals, for ethical reasons. An animal can be darted six or eight times in her life without capturing her. This issue, of handling, or no handling is an animal welfare issue and not a scientific one. Kate Supron: And when — at what age do they breed, and for how long? Dr. Curtis: It's variable. Depends on — it depends on quality of habitat. So where you've got a really good quality of habitat here, some of the earlier born female fawns — maybe as many as 20% of the earlier born female fawns—will breed as fawns. Invariably almost all the yearling deer—the year-and-a-half-old deer—will breed, and usually most yearling deer will have a single fawn the first birth. And then once a deer is two-and-a- half years old or older, and a full doe, then she will typically have two fawns every year for the rest of her life. And occasionally, when resources are real good, the winters are mild, she may have three. We occasionally see triplets. So, if you start looking again at the population growth equation, you've got annual first breed —fawns or yearlings for the most part. You've got a long-lived animal that's going to live 12 years, and so to keep the population stable, for a 12-year-old female deer, only one of her female fawns needs to survive during her lifetime in order to keep the population stable. And what are the chances of that? Not very good. Dr. Curtis: So what have we learned from immunocontraception? Both the vaccines effectively inhibit reproduction for individual deer. They're very costly, given the field protocols you gotta do. Dr. Kirkpatrick comments:The immunocontraceptive costs $24/dose (the cost of production); $2.15 for the dart; fifty cents for the adjuvant. Labor is the only other significant cost. Dr. Allen Rutberg, at Tufts University School of veterinary Medicine and the lead author in the scientific publications describing these two projects, did an exhaustive analysis of labor for deer contraception. Contraceptive darting time per deer ranges from lows of 2.7 - to highs of 17 hrs per deer. If you use an average of about 10 hrs per deer, and you want to treat about 100 deer, and you pay the darter $15/hr, the cost is about $15,000 per 100 deer, which is somewhere in the neighborhood of what we found at Fire Island (except the time per deer was lower there). (see Rutberg. 2005. Deer contraception; What we know and what we don't know. Humane Wildlife Solutions. A. Rutberg (ed). Humane Society Press, Washington DC, Pp. 23-42). Dr. Curtis: And a couple of other things we saw— with the PZP vaccine, because the female deer weren't becoming pregnant, we saw a lot of increased activity. The buck continued to try to breed those deer up until March, when photoperiods shut down their estrus cychrig. Normally with deer-- typically the majority of adult does would get pregnant right on their First estrus in November—first week in November is about the 6 Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS.Community Response Stein, La Veck. Huang(p. 37-49)-Page 43 Originally submitted 10-28-09 at VCH SEQRA Hearing on Draft Deer Remediation Plan F ere. For those does that don't become pregnant on the first breed, they'll December, and most of the does at that point will get pregnant and eir second breeding. And then usually by the time that you're at the end there aren't any fertile does left. But with the PZP-treated female, ecausetey can't become fertile, photoperiod keeps that cycling going. And so they cycle based on day length, and they cycle again in January, and they cycle again in February, they cycle again in March. So you've got bucks chasing does all winter long, that you wouldn't normally have. So that could mean potentially deer running in front of cars. We know most deer vehicle accidents occur during the peak of the rut in November. There's good data that show that. And a lot of these things need to be looked at, I think, if we're going to get into using these vaccines in a management phase over the long term. Dr. Kirkpatrick comments: The study referred to here was done at Front Royal, at the Smithsonian's Conservation and Research Center (see McShea et al. 1997. The effect of immunocontraception on behavior and reproduction of white-tailed deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 61:560-569.) What was discovered was that (1) treated deer did extend their breeding season, (2) older bucks did all the normal early breeding and then quit, (3) younger bucks (spikes and fork horns) followed the estrous does around but not in any form of frenzy, (4) the following summer, the non-pregnant treated does were significantly heavier than the non-treated does with fawns. A subsequent study showed that by fall, weight differences disappeared (see Walter et al. 2003. J. Wildl.Manage. 67:762-766). The point here is, that a "frenzy" of activity does not result from the extended breeding season. And in fact, there is published data to show that, in treated Populations (NIST in this case) deer-car accidents decline as population declines. (see Rutberg and Naugle 2008. Human-Wildlife Confliects 2:60-67.) If immunocontraception and the extended breeding season resulted in more car-deer collisions, why did the rate go down at NIST? End of video transcript excerpts/comments Jay F. Kirkpatrick, Ph.D. Director The Science and Conservation Center 2100 South Shiloh Road Billings, MT 59106 406-652-9719 fax (406) 652-9281 j kirkpatrick(i)montana.net 7 Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS:Community Response Stein, LaVeck, Huang(p. 37-49)-Page 44 Originally submitted 10-28-09 at VCH SEQRA Hearing on Draft Deer Remediation Plan Biography of Jay F. Kirkpatrick, Ph.D. Dr. Kirkpatrick grew up in rural Bucks County, Pennsylvania and earned the Ph. D. in reproductive physiology from the College of Veterinary Medicine at Cornell University in 1971. For 23 years he taught physiology at Montana State University-Billings and for seven of those years he served as Dean of the School of Arts and Sciences. Along the way of this career Dr. Kirkpatrick worked as a ranger for the National Park Service for seven years, in Rocky Mountain National Park, was a senior scientist for Deaconess Research Institute, and carried out post-doctoral studies at the veterinary schools at the University of Pennsylvania and the University of California at Davis, and at the Center for Reproduction in Endangered Species at the San Diego Zoo. He also held an academic appointment as adjunct associate professor in the Department of Population Health and Reproduction, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California at Davis from 1992 to 2005, and is currently the Director of the Science and Conservation Center at ZooMontana, in Billings. Dr. Kirkpatrick has served on the National Animal Damage Control Advisory Committee for the Secretary of Agriculture. He is a member of the Contraceptive Advisory Group for the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, and has served on the Montana Wolf Management Council. For the past 38 years Dr. Kirkpatrick has carved out research on fertility control for wild horses and other wildlife, for the purpose of developing non-lethal and humane methods of controlling wildlife populations, and on non-capture methods for studying reproduction in free-ranging wildlife species through the use of urinary and fecal steroid hormones. His work has included wild horses, African elephants, white-tailed deer, water buffalo, bison, elk and more than 100 species of captive exotic animals in zoos. Dr. Kirkpatrick is probably best known for his contraceptive research with the wild horses of Assateague Island, for the study of reproduction in the bison of Yellowstone National Park, and more recently for African elephant contraception in the Republic of South Africa. He is the author of more than 100 scientific papers and book chapters, of which 54 relate to the biology of wild horses or fertility control of this species. He is also the author of Into The Wind:North America's Wild Horses. In 2001, the reproductive biology laboratory of the new veterinary center for Kruger National Park, in South Africa was dedicated in his name. In 2002, he was the recipient of the National Park Service's Researcher of the Year for the Northeast Region, for his contraceptive work with the Assateague wild horses, in 2004 he was awarded the Montana Academy of Science's Mershon Award, for outstanding contributions in the field of science in Montana, and in 2005, Dr. Kirkpatrick was inducted into the Wild Horse and Burro Exposition Hall of Fame. He is best summarized by a comment by Dr. Ron Keiper, Distinguished Professor of Biology at Penn State University, himself a noted wild horse researcher. He says, "Dr. Kirkpatrick is a champion of wild horses. To their cause he has brought the cold eye of 8 Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS,Community Response Stein, LaVeck, Huang(p. 37-49)-page 45 Originally submitted 10-28-09 at VCH SEQRA Hearing on Draft Deer Remediation Plan F ience and the warm heart ofcompassion. To him wild horses have value shnplycause they are magnificent creatures that have survived all that nature and Irian has rown at them." r. Kirkpatrick lives with his wife Kathie in Billings, Montana, with their two dogs Angus and Farley and cat Savannah. 9 Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DENS.,Community Response Stein, CaVeck, Huang(p. 37-49)-Page 46 Issue #2: Request for description of the action (deer killing program) sufficiently detailed for the public to evaluate the environmental impacts that will result Cayuga Heights' Deer Management Plan DEIS Executive Summary: page 1-5 puts forth a budget of $750,000 over the course of the first five years of the deer killing plan. While carrying out calculations about the cost of the mass killing of deer is in itself disturbing, based on the claimed current level of deer population of 160-200, the target population number of 30, and the estimated figures given for the costs of either sterilizing ($1,100 each) or killing ($500 each) deer, along with a generous allow- ance for the cost of killing deer immigrating in from other municipalities after most of the deer are killed in the Village, it appears that no more than roughly $150,000 to $250,000 could conceivably be needed to carry out these activities, leaving $500,000 - $600,000 of the total budget allocated to 1) contingencies, 2) the salary of a "deer management director", and 3) an item described as "modeling/ tracking study."A"Draft Plan Cost Analysis" document developed by the Village government and ob- tained through an October 15, 2009 Freedom of Information request, included two years of salary for a deer management director at $30,000 per year. Factoring this in, between $440,000 and $560,000 of the $750,000 put forth in the DEIS will be left to cover contingencies and an item described as a "modeling/tracking study." Based on the Draft Plan Cost Analysis document, the "modeling/tracking study' is an activity for which $275,000 is budgeted over the 10 years of the projected plan, of which $225,000 would be expended in the first five years. According to statements made by Trustee Robert Andolina at an 8/24/09 meeting, these funds are budgeted to pay a "PhD from Cornell" to carry out these vaguely specified duties. "Urg1?Plan Cost AnedYso",/or Cgpuga Heights'deer mctncagement pi ogrom,rewired through 10//5109 Freedom ql hilm mation Request 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Sterilized Deer S 36,000.00 $ 3,60000 S 3,600.00 $ 3,6W W $ 3,600.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $Culled Deer $ - 5 70,00000 S - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - DeerManagementProfessional $ 30,000.W $ 30,00000 S - $ - $ . $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Modeling/Tracking/Study $ 50,000.00 $ 50,00000 $ 50,000.00 $ SO,WOW $ 25,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,00000 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000W $ 10,000.00 Contingency $ 50,000A0 $ 50,00000 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,W0 W $ 50,0WD0 $ 10,000.00 S 10,00000 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000 W $ 10,0W.W Indirect Cost Rate(CAB) $ 12,9W.00 $ 8,04000 S 8,040.W $ 8,04000 $ 4,290.00 S 1,500.00 $ 1,500W $ 1,500.W $ 1,5WDO $ 1,500.00 Total Program S 178,900.110 S 211,64000 5 111,640.00 $ 111,640W $ 82,890.00 $ 21,500.00 $ 21,50000 $ 21,500.00 $ 21,500 W 5 21,500.W PV Program $ 804,210.00 O.W% Sterilized Deer 30 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 Culled Deer 0 140 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cost to sterilize per deer 5 1,20.00 $ 1,20000 $ 1,200DO 5 1,200W $ 1,20).00 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,2000 $ 1,200.0 $ 1,20000 $ 1,200.00 Cost to cull per deer $ 50.00 $ 500DO S SW.00 $ 50000 $ SW.00 $ 500.00 $ 5WW $ SW.W 5 500.00 S 50.00 CATS Research Indirect Charge 15% In order for the public to be able to evaluate the potential environmental impact of an action, the description of the action offered must be of sufficient detail for us to be able to clearly understand what sort of activities will be carried out in the community, where and when they will be carried out, by whom, and for what purpose. As the DEIS is written, this information is completely omitted for activi- ties substantial enough to comprise 30% of the project's budget. Further, in a July 16, 2009 email (returned in a group of documents received in response to a November 23, 2009 Freedom of Informa- tion request), Paul Curtis, the principal scientific advisor to the trustees and architect of the deer killing plan, said "Immigration is extremely difficult to measure, and little is published on this topic. The situa- tion in VCH would provide a unique case to actually measure immigration rates if a known number of adult females were tagged, and all other deer were removed. I don't think such a field experiment has ever been conducted previously." This confirms how fundamentally the deer killing program is an "ex- periment," which only emphasizes the obligation of the trustees to include detailed information about the nature and purpose of the activities to be performed under the rubric of "study." These activities are of such a scope to require the disbursement of a substantial portion of the budget, yet no details 10