HomeMy WebLinkAboutCayugaDeer section 5.pdf Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS:Community Response Lowell Garner(p. 64-76)-Page 66
TABLE 2. DISTANCE SAMPLING RESULTS IN ROCK CREEK PARK calculated
Year Deer per Square Mile Standard Error of the Mean(±) %var.YTY
2000 62 11.6 NA
2001 63 6.9 1.6
2002 60 8.0 -5.0
2003 98 17.3 63.3
2004 75 7.8 -23.5
2005 52 6.9 -30.6
2006 58 8.9 11.5
2007 82 10.21 41.4
Source:K.Ferebee pers comm.2007b, 2008f
Had we chosen 3 of the years (2002,2004,2005) no action would have been
even warranted! It is clear depending what year was chosen for examination, this
would have critically influenced the preferred plan. This same comment is
applicable to remarks on pg1-7 "...based on projections by the DRAC", which
continues to use Dr. Curtis' best 'guess'.
Pg1-2 of the CHDEIS:
...water contamination through substantially higher levels of untreated
wastes in stormwater runoff.
Comment: This is conjecture only and nowhere in the CHDEIS is this
contamination documented. Page 3-4 of the CHDEIS reasserts this conjecture.
No mention of fecal waste contamination ever appears in the entire NPS
document although it talks about stormwater and surface water repeatedly.
Historically, the Village has been careless in its duty to protect the watershed for
other causes. It therefore surprises me in light of these prior experiences that the
Village cannot supply more information.
Pg1-2 of the CHDEIS:
... It is expected that this program will, once implemented, result in a reduced
and stable deer herd in approximately three to five years.
Comment: No data has been supplied to support this assertion.
Pg1-4 of the CHDEIS:
...The smaller deer population will likely reduce deer/car accidents
Comment: there is no data provided in this report as to the traveling speed of
vehicles involved in deer collisions. In data that includes this variable, on average
85% of vehicles are traveling 35mph of more. The Village speed limit is 30mph.
Enforcement of the Village speed limit will not only result in fewer collisions but
also enhance pedestrian, bicycle, and domestic and wild animal safety. The table
below in Appendix D supports the contention that the roads at highest risk for
speeding in Cayuga Heights also have the most accidents. Page 3-3 of the
CHDEIS restates this point without pointing out the deficiency of this observation.
4
Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DENS:Community Response Lowell Garner 64-76)-Page 67
C.3
I it
1-o
2
Pg1-4 of the CHDEIS:
...It is expected that in the long term, local vegetative diversity and wildlife habitat
will improve...
Comment: The word 'expected', without the performance of controlled exclosure
experiments for a suburban landscape, is wishful at best, considering that
surface water runoff from suburban landscape is known to contain significant
herbicidal loads.
Pg1-4 of the CHDEIS:
...Culling activities are likely to involve the discharge of firearms in the VCH. Mr.
Anthony Denicola, the owner of a firm that carries out deer culling activities,
advises that in 15 years of such work and the culling of some 9,000 to 10,000
deer, there has never been an incident of harm to people, nontarget animals or
property in connection with said activities (personal communication, 9128110)...
Comment: Mr. DeNicola stands to benefit significantly in both recognition and
financially as a private consultant if this plan goes forward (although it may not be
obvious since White Buffalo, Inc. is currently seeking tax exempt status as a
public charity according to its own website). To not corroborate his statistics of
'no incidents', is abandonment of responsibility by the government body that is
supposed to protect its electorate. Has a search been done to see if any civil or
statutory actions have been taken against him or White Buffalo, Inc? Have
organizations been contacted that have utilized his services to see if any
untoward outcomes have been associated with lethal action? "No record of
incidents" is by his account. In fact, I contacted the Kansas Department of
Wildlife and Parks after reading about an incident, which possibly could disturb
some public officials, should they consider hiring him. I was told they keep no
such records. There are no national clearinghouses that even keep these
statistics; some states do (e.g. NY) and some don't.
5
Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS:Community Response Lowell Gamer(p. 64-76)-Page 68
Pg1-5 of the CHDEIS:
...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...
Comment: The lethal option introduced (not mentioned publicly prior to the
CHDEIS), to be done in conjunction with sterilization, is trapping and use of a
penetrating bolt, sometimes referred to as netting and bolting. This lethal method
will not only create greater public dissent due its brutality but will amplify
neighbor-to neighbor conflict due to significantly less property restrictions of
where the technique will be permitted. No 500' sign-off is required. This will place
a burden on the community as well as public safety departments. This is
evidenced by the fact that a Freedom of Information request was necessary to
find out that net-and-bolt was being considered as late in the EIS process as 2
weeks ago. Clearly they did not want the community to have a chance to dissent.
Pg1-5 of the CHDEIS:
...The result of a successful sterilization and culling program will be a stabilized
deer herd of approximately 30 animals.
Comment: This statement assumes that Cayuga Heights is essentially an
exclosure, which it is not.
Pg1-6 of the CHDEIS:
...No significant unavoidable adverse impacts have been identified in connection
with the proposed deer management plan....
Comment: One of the major purposes of a DEIS is to present all possible
alternatives to determine whether or not a particular alternative imposes a
significant adverse impact that could be avoided. There is ample evidence that
lethal methods will produce significant community resistance. The NPS
document has a whole section devoted to this. Specifically it states:"...There may
be some unavoidable adverse effects to visitors relating to the implementation of the
sharpshooting or capture and euthanasia, if the visitors happened to be near areas where this was
occurring and were disturbed by these actions."
Pg1-6 of the CHDEIS:
... lack of food will either result in wasting disease or result in increased deer
population in areas outside the VCH...
Comment: This misinformed statement's purpose is to confuse the lay
expression "wasting disease" with Chronic Wasting Disease, which is clearly
implied above to be due to lack of food, rather than a transmissible disease
(spongiform encephalitis), which has yet to be documented in our area as well as
to cause additional public concern. As for preventing an increased deer
population in outside communities, this was never a stated in the CHDEIS as an
6
Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS:Community Response Lowell Garner ip. 64-76)-Page 69
objective. In fact, the successful outcome of the CHDEIS is directly dependent
upon the assumption that Cayuga Heights is a relatively closed system- you can't
have it both ways.
Pg1-8 of the CHDEIS:
...This is the most cost effective method of reducing the size of the deer herd...
Comment: Nowhere in the CHDEIS is an "apples-to-apples" cost-benefit analysis
provided taking into account preparatory, implementation, and outcome phase
costs. To assert this without and actual accounting, is an uncertain statement at
the very least and very possibly quite erroneous at the worst. (see NPS page 65
for an example of such a comparison; many such examples appear throughout
the document so their summary conclusions have data to support them). Pages
3-9 through 3-10 of the CHDEIS devote a discussion to socioeconomic
considerations and offer no CH data other than its annual budget. Pages 4-6
through 4-7, a section dedicated to analysis, offers nothing more than "it is
possible that the costs associated with the high density deer population
(ecological damage, vehicular accidents, tick borne diseases, landscape loss,
etc.), as discussed in Chapter 3 will be substantially reduced as well." The
expression `It is possible' is not an acceptable conclusion to embark upon a plan
in this time of fiscal triage.
Pg 2-4 of the CHDEIS:
...Cayuga Heights is not a forest but rather an ecosystem heavily influenced by a
pattern of residential development and an associated suburban landscape. Ideal
deer population densities are likely different in the suburban setting than an
undeveloped forest...
Comment: The CHDEIS repeatedly supports its plan with historical and current
data that utilize the forest ecosystems as its gold standard. To use this data as
assumptions for suburban Cayuga Heights, as its own DEIS admits, can be
nothing less than suspect.
Pg 3-3 of the CHDEIS:
...These areas are important aesthetically in the Village, contain old growth forest
and hold other valuable ecological characteristics. They provide habitat to the
local deer herd. The impact of browsing on these natural areas is not known...
Comment: One of the key points in making the case for deer population control is
the loss of biodiversity. Here we have a forested "control" as part of the Village,
to use in conjunction with data from many other forested deer population control
plans throughout the U.S. and have the opportunity to determine comparability to
our region (let alone a suburban environment which they are attempting to
compare a forest to), and no attempt has even been made! This is a glaring
oversight.
7
Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS:Community Response Lowell Gamer Ip. 64-76)-Page 70
Pg 3-3 of the CHDEIS:
...It is not known how many people support the plan of the Village versus how
many people oppose it...
Comment: Because trapping and penetrating bolt gun is the desired lethal means
and only recently announced 2 weeks ago, the Village resident survey done in
the 1990's is not applicable. Many of the public are still unaware of the
implications of net-and-bolt and have not been surveyed as to their views. This
has the potential to mobilize a significant objection from the community with
public safety becoming even more of an issue than frangible bullets (besides the
simple fact that a majority of the community may be against the action, and the
fact that the Village board has repeatedly stated that they are acting at the
wishes of their community). The lack of recognition for the possibility of intense
community opposition as indicated on page 4-6 of the CHDEIS, has led to the
gross underestimation of allocation of personnel and money to the CH police, of
the effect on public safety, and of the costs of a probable legal challenge.
Pg 6-1 of the CHDEIS:
6,1 No Action Alternative
Under this alternative, no management of the deer herd would take place. The
DRAC has determined that No Action will result in continued growth of the deer herd.
Given the complaints about the deer population and the ongoing impacts of
ecological damage, deer/vehicle incidents, landscape destruction and tick borne
diseases, the No Action alternative will simply exacerbate the current situation.
It is possible that if the herd grows significantly, lack of food will either result in
wasting disease or result in increased density of the deer population outside the
VCH. If the No Action alternative is selected, certain activities associated with
sterilization and culling as identified earlier in this DEIS will not occur. While the
costs of the deer management program would not be expended from the Village
budget, the ongoing costs of ecological damage, vehicular accidents, landscape loss
and replacement and Lyme disease treatment would remain similar to existing
conditions or potentially increase as the density of the herd increases. The No Action
alternative would likely have far more adverse impact than the proposed action.
Comment: The whole purpose of the CHDEIS from its inception was to reject this
alternative. The assertions within this statement have been previously
commented upon in my aforementioned comments, and are generally
unsubstantiated.
Pg 6-1 of the CHDEIS:
6.2 Sterilization Only. No Culling
Under this alternative, no culling would take place and greater numbers of deer
would need to be sterilized in order to stabilize the herd at the numbers
recommended by the DRAC. This option is slower and more expensive than
culling alone or the combined approach of culling and sterilization. It would take
three to five years to stabilize the herd, and herd reduction would not be evident
for five to six years, based on projections by the DRAC.
8
Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DENS:Community Response Lowell Gamer(p. 64-76)-Page 71
Comment: Once again, unsupported projections of population control are
asserted to dismiss this as an option. As presented previously, tubal ligation
combined with pharmocologic or immunologic contraception might provide a
more effective method that would produce earlier stabilization of population
density.
Pg 6-2 of the CHDEIS:
6.3 Firearm Culling Only, No Sterilization
This is the most cost effective method (in the short-term) to reduce deer herd and
also the most controversial...
Comment: It is not the most controversial. See the next section. Of particular
note is that sterilization was not combined with this technique to make this an
unacceptable alternative, as emphasized by "in the short-term".
Pg 6-2 of the CHDEIS:
6.4 Sterilization and Culling by Trapping
At the present time, trapping and killing deer is not permitted under the wildlife
regulations of the State of New York. However, if relief could be secured from
that provision via the deer management permit, an alternative to using firearms to
cull deer would be to trap deer and use a captive bolt gun. This device kills the
animal instantly allegedly without causing pain. A captive bolt gun has a steel bolt
that is powered by either compressed air or a blank cartridge. The bolt is driven
into the animal's brain. It has the same effect on the animal as a firearm with a
live bullet. A captive bolt gun is safer than a firearm and is considered to be an
effective form of euthanasia by the American Veterinarian Medical Association.
This is a slower process than culling and more labor intensive. Multiple traps
could be employed and deer could be culled over an extended period with minor
disruption to the local community.
Comment: Firstly this alternative is misrepresented by the title of the section,
perhaps giving the reader the impression that trapping will be combined with
translocation. This is not the case. Rocket-assisted nets are typically combined
with a penetrating bolt gun (used in the slaughter industry) to kill the animal. The
following are comments I presented at the Village meeting of 12/6/10:
The net and bolt technique outside of a slaughterhouse 1) lacks ways to
minimize fear of the condemned animals. There is mainstream
neuropharmacology supporting the assertion that fear and stress, not pain, are
the most inhumane of all stimuli we can inflict upon an animal. Temple Grandin
has written extensively on this subject. Even those who earn their living by
eliminating deer speak about the increased stress the animals experience with
the net and bolt technique. Netted deer will agonize from the most severe form of
fear. I can't emphasize this enough. From the time the deer are netted until they
are killed these animals will suffer; 2) lacks effective and predictable restraint- the
key to killing swiftly is an effective restraint, otherwise there are too many 2nd
9
Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS:Community Response Lowell Garner(p. 64-76)-Page 72
attempts. A net does not provide effective restraint. There must be extreme
precision of bolt placement to effectuate a first-kill. A terrified struggling deer will
have its face frequently shattered before subsequent attempts are successful in
producing death; 3) lacks quick and accurate killing that minimizes pain making
the slaughter of these netted deer even more odious than any other technique
suggested until the present time. Though the bolt device is "effective" as a form
of euthanasia by the American Veterinary Medical Association Guidelines (as in
guidelines; not standard of care) on Euthanasia, the AVMA has never endorsed
this method as the preferred technique in the slaughter of whitetail deer.
To bring this point home further: It is "effective" to give cancer patients
intermittent pain medication to control suffering associated with their disease. It is
neither acceptable, desirable, suitable, adequate, applicable nor any other word
one might use. However, continuous administration of pain medication is
essentially the only method used today, and if it is not, there better be a
justifiable reason other than convenience. Those that make their living from
killing deer attest to the fact that net-and-bolt is the most stressful of all
techniques. In the NPS's final EIS document on Catoctin Mountain Park
http://www.nps.gov/cato/parkmgmt/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid
=127892 they emphasize this point.
Pg 7-1 of the CHDEIS:
...The labor and energy that will go into sterilization and culling activities will be
irreversible and irretrievable...
Comments: And "Irreversible and irretrievable" both in financial cost and life as
well.
General Comments:
1) There is potential for significant conflict of interest issues with respect to Drs.
Anthony DeNicola and Paul Curtis both individually and in collaboration with one
another. This id not disclosed in the CHDEIS and integrity demands this.
2) Throughout the CHDEIS there is mention of tick-borne disease and in
particular Lyme as a reason to pursue deer population control. Not in a single
sentence, in the entire 400 page NPS EIS can one find mention of tick-deer
interaction as a reason to pursue deer population reduction (see below). The
CHDEIS page 2-10 assertion that "Studies also show that the number of ticks in
a local area is generally linearly correlated with the number of deer present.
Recommended mitigation of deer-borne diseases includes fencing, reducing tick
habitats... Educating the public includes practicing 'due diligence' in clothing for
outdoor wear and learning to check for ticks after being outdoors" have
disappointedly proven false time and again. All studies to date that have looked
at this, have supported the conclusion that reduction is helpful are quite isolated
systems or where other mammalian hosts other than deer are lacking. The single
paper (out of hundreds that show otherwise) cited in the CHDEIS on page 3-5
10
Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DENS:Community Response Lowell Garner(p. 64-76)-Page 73
was an isolated offshore island that states clearly this fact. In a telephone
conversation (12/9/10) 1 had with Dan Sealy, Acting Chief of Natural Resources &
Science of the National Capital Region at the Center for Urban Ecology, he
stated in no uncertain terms, that the NPS never uses Lyme's incidence or tick
densities as threshold indicators for deer population intervention since there is no
correlation. Current medical literature on prevention recognizes this issue as well.
Gary P. Wormser, MD, from New York Medical College in Valhalla and an expert
on Lyme disease is caused by Borrelia burgdorferi, transmitted by the bite of the
tick species lxodes scapularis and lxodes pacificus has written extensively on
this (Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2005 Jun;117(11-12):385-91). He states: Deer
elimination or exclusion, application of topical acaricides to mice or deer, and application
of systemic acaricides to deer are more complex approaches. However, none of these
methods for reducing tick numbers, nor any of the recommended personal prevention
measures, such as reducing the amount of exposed skin, use of tick repellents on exposed
skin or clothing, and frequent tick checks to remove attached ticks expeditiously, has
been demonstrated to decrease significantly the incidence of Lyme borreliosis in humans.
It is also erroneous for CH to use countywide data (a rural region) to support its
contention that Lyme is a public health issue for its residents, as it does in
Appendix D of the CHDEIS, as well as to omit the travel histories of CH's
residents affected by this disease.
3) A glaring deficiency (pgs 2-7 through 2-10 which encompasses Specific
Recommendations) of this CHDEIS is that there is no provision or statement that
the plan's efficacy will be reviewed at periodic intervals to evaluate methods
currently in use in light of new concepts, especially non-lethal modalities. The
NPS document emphasizes the importance of this point repeatedly. In addition,
there is no mention anywhere in the CHDEIS of adaptive management
considerations for any of the alternatives (NPS page 73)
4) Frequent requests from the community, even those in favor of the lethal
alternative, have been made for 8' fencing- the village refuses to consider this an
option for individual property owners (see page 3-6 of CHDEIS) and it continues
to be ignored as an alternative in the CHDEIS.
5) One of the main intents for a DEIS is to invite interested stakeholders to
comment. There is no list of stakeholders in the CHDEIS other than mention of
the public and CayugaDeer.org. nor is there record of solicitation other than
public notice. The NPS document contains a fairly large list, some of which could
be used to identify similar entities locally that would have an interest in this plan. I
have included the list below:
LIST OF RECIPIENTS OF THE DRAFT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT
This plan/ElS will be sent to the following agencies, organizations, and businesses, as well as to
other entities and individuals who requested a copy.
II
Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DENS:Community Response Lowell Garner(p. 64- 76)-Page 74
CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATES
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia Delegate
Christopher Van Hollen, Jr., 8th Congressional District, Maryland
Donna F. Edwards, 4th Congressional District, Maryland
Barbara Mikulski, U.S. Senate, MD
Benjamin L. Cardin, U.S. Senate, MD
FEDERAL AGENCIES
Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historic Park
Smithsonian National Zoo and National Zoo Police
State Department--Embassies
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay Field Office
U.S. Navy, Naval Observatory
U.S. Park Police
U.S. Secret Service
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
Advisory Neighborhood Commissions
Commission of Fine Arts
D.C. City Council
D.C. Department of Environment, Fisheries and Wildlife Division
D.C. Department of Health, Animal Disease Prevention Division
D.C. Department of Recreation, Office of Planning and Policy
D.C. Department of Transportation
D.C. Fire and Emergency Services
D.C. Historic Preservation Office, State Iistoric Preservation Officer
D.C. Metropolitan Police Department
D.C. Office Of Planning
D.C. Office of Tourism and Promotion
Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife and Heritage Service
Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission—Montgomery County
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
National Capital Park and Planning Commission
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
ORGANIZATIONS/OTHER
AAA Potomac
Adjacent Property Owners
American Automobile Association, National Office
American Recreation Coalition
Animal Welfare Institute
Arizona Bowhunters Association
Audubon Naturalist Society Central Atlantic States
Audubon Naturalist Society of the District of Columbia
Blair Road Garden Association
Chesapeake Bay Foundation, District of Columbia Office
Chesapeake Bay Program Office, NPS
Chevy Chase Citizens Association
Crestwood Citizen's Association
Defenders of Wildlife
Earth Justice
Fort Reno Garden Association
Fort Stevens Garden Association
12
Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS.Community Response Lowell Garner(p. 64- 76)-Page 75
Friends of Animals
Friends of Montrose and Dumbarton Oaks Park
Friends of Peirce Mill
Friends of Rock Creeks Environment (FORCE)
Friends of the Earth
Glover Park Garden Association
Glover Park Citizens' Association
Golf Course Specialists Inc
Green Peace
Hillandale Citizens Association
Hillwood Museum
Humane Society of the United States
Interstate Commission of Potomac River Basin
Izaak Walton League of America
Jonathan Woodner C., Woodner Apts.
Mamie D. Lee Garden Association
Maryland Native Plant Society
Maryland Ornithological Society
Meadowbrook Riding Stables
Melvin Hazen Garden Association
National Park Foundation
National Parks and Conservation Association
National Wildlife Federation
National Zoological Park, Smithsonian
Nature Conservancy
Oak Hill Cemetery
Peabody Garden Association
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)
Potomac Appalachian Trail Club
Rock Creek Garden Association
Rollingwood Citizens Association
Sierra Club, DC Chapter
The Northwest Current
The Shoreham North
The Washington DC Examiner
Tilden Gardens
Trail Riders of Tomorrow (-TROT)- 50
Walter Reed Army Medical Center
Washington Area Bicycle Association
Washington City Paper
Washington Humane Society
Cayuga Heights is acting in apparent isolation in spite of a multitude of agencies
that may have a direct interest.
Summary:
The CHDEIS in its present form does not specify the current deer density, does
not document the impact on biodiversity other than by stating the general
impressions of the public or by inference, does not acknowledge that Lyme
disease has no correlation to deer density in this open suburban setting, nor
does it allow placement of fences (exclosures). The Village has tried to
13
Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS:Community Response Lowell Garner(p. 64-76)-Page 76
circumvent the EIS scoping process and comment by its introduction of the
alternative of trapping and use of a penetrating bolt gun by announcing its
preference for such, for the very first time, in this DEIS. In addition, the CHDEIS
represents a costly plan, one that is particularly inhumane and will pit neighbor
against neighbor Therefore, the CHDEIS should not be approved in its present
form and withdrawn.
Cornell University with its vast talent in ecology, horticulture and plant science,
veterinary medicine, and natural resources should help guide our decisions along
with all stakeholders. In an email I received today from the Acting Chief of
Natural Resources & Science of the National Capital Region at the Center for
Urban Ecology, Dan Sealy, he says, "I would encourage those working toward a
solution to make sure the goals of the effort are clear and achievable based upon
the best science you have available."
The CHDEIS goals while clear, may be poorly chosen, unachievable and at their
very best, based upon anecdote, questionable documentation, and lacking in
state-of-the-art science.
Respectfully submitted 12/16/10,
Lowell Garner
14
Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS.,Community Response Mary&Guy Tabacchi(p.77-79)Page-77
Village of Cayuga Heights Board of Trustees
Cayuga Heights, Ithaca, NY 14850
15 December 2010
Subject: Comments and Feedback Regarding Deer Management Plan for Cayuga Heights Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
We live at on a 2 acre wooded plot with a lovely pond and waterfall. In 1977, we
purchased this property from Alpheus and Nicole Smith,who through the years had fostered a wildlife
sanctuary by their preservation of plant species and undergrowth in which animals take shelter. Mrs.
Smith was the niece of the famed naturalist John Muir, and with her knowledge and background she
encouraged the growth of native plants, bushes and trees.
We purposely purchased this land in the anticipation that we too would preserve this small oasis for our
family,friends and the animals.Since then, we have lived in peace with many species,sharing
our home with deer, squirrels, muskrats, opossums,wood chucks, chip monks, mice,fish, turtles, water
snakes, song birds, crows, hawks, buzzards and waterfowl, all fellow beings whose presence we keenly
enjoy. Occasionally we even see red fox, raccoons and skunks. This small microcosm in a hectic world
gives us much peace, beauty and joy. It is our refuge and our strength.
For many years, we grew vegetables, but alas,the wood chucks have similar tastes—so after many years
of building fences which the woodchucks burrowed under—we happily retreated to the Ithaca Farmers'
Market. Before giving up our vegetable garden,we paid to have someone trap the wood chucks with
"have a heart"traps and relocate them—it would not have occurred to us to go to the Village Trustees
and ask for the extermination of these animals.
Now it appears that we, and all of the inhabitants of our sanctuary, will be subjected to baiting, netting
terror, pain, and mass killing with guns or captive bolt guns. This is indeed horrific—as I write this,there
are mallards swimming on the pond, deer drinking in the stream and squirrels in their nests high above
my head. We are fond of all of our animals, but the deer have become constant, silent companions in
our habitat. They live in families - mothers, daughters and their offspring. These families move together
and their tender, gentle eyes move us each time we encounter them. Because we prove no threat—they
live close to us. We are accustomed to seeing them at dawn and at days end. Bucks come and go—but
one buck this year particularly looked after an orphan fawn —the two are still together and both are
beautiful animals. Bucks sometimes "spar"with one another—in our back yard. The sparing appears to
be in play because no injury occurs. Our cats can walk up to large bucks with no fear—the young fawns
often come nose to nose with our companion animals.
Losing these animals would be painful for us, and those who live on either side of our property.Our
neighbors on one side are vegan and the idea of killing anything is against their deeply held beliefs.
Words cannot express my fear for these gentle deer families—we have bonded with them and they with
us. Not to see them each morning and evening would be a loss indeed. When my Mom lived with us—
she was slowly developing dementia —but she spent hours watching for the deer and called me often to
the window—to point out their beauty and grace. We have named these deer—and know the
characteristics of individuals and their families. They are protective of each other as only close family
members can be. Deer communicate through a series of soft high pitched sounds, and if by mistake we
walk too closely to a young fawn—they more or less snort—kind of a warning to respect their space.
The mother can place a young fawn in the grass or under a tree or bush and the fawn does not move
1
Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS:Community Response Mary&Guy Tabacchi(p.77-79)Page-78
until the mother returns. fawns play—chasing each other almost gleefully. Deer seem to run for sheer
joy—a way of expressing their exuberance.They show affection by grooming each other, by actual
snuggling, and by being watchful for each other. For most of our time here—we have jogged a 3-4 mile
route in Cayuga Heights—often at dawn or right before—just as deer are moving about. Never have any
of these animals been aggressive nor have they bothered our shrubs,flowers or companion animals.
We have learned to love these animals and their families—they sleep in our yard,occasionally look in
our windows and drink from our stream and our pond. In the winter the young ones run and slide across
the frozen pond. Yes—they raid the bird feeder—but they are fun to watch. These are not wild deer
living in a remote forest—they are habituated to humans and part of our community, and to slaughter
them as they live amongst us in their trusting state would indeed be cruel.
We have been coming to as many Village Board meetings as we are able given our occupations—I teach
as a professor at Cornell University and my husband runs a consulting business out of our home.At each
board meeting we attend—we have strongly objected to the killing of deer with our tax monies. We
have paid taxes since 1977 in the Village. It is hard to discuss our feelings given the manner in which our
speaking is so artificially controlled. The opportunity to have a back and forth public dialog with the
trustees almost never happens. Matters so much more trivial than the heavy impact of this killing
program on our community are discussed in obsessive detail. But our concerns,and those of many
others who oppose this program are shown almost no consideration or respect.The people promoting
this killing program have created a climate of intimidation in the village—I experienced this when I ran
for trustee a couple of years ago. Members of our party, which stood for a more open approach to
government,were treated with a shocking level of disrespect,and even stopped on the village streets
and accused of violating various laws while campaigning. I have been chided by members of the current
board for caring about the deer, creating a climate in which my concerns are seen as trivial or somehow
illegitimate. Basic questions my husband has posed at public meetings about the financing of the killing
program have been deliberately ignored. Some of my neighbors also love the deer and abhor the
thought of such slaughter, but are afraid to speak up or to write to the papers for fear of being
mistreated or marginalized. This is not something I have seen before in over three decades in this
village.
We believe that the mass killing of these animals will affect the nature of our environment and the
character of the village. Children should not experience this violence—nor should anyone who does not
want to be subjected to it.This killing, which will happen each year—will have a deep psychological
impacts upon all of us,and affect our relationship to each other.This also brings a sad sense of loss,a
loss of the beauty and grace of these innocent animals—and a loss of innocence of the neighborhoods,
and a continuing divide among neighbors—who have for years been friends.
While we are not biodiversity experts—we have not noticed a loss of native plants or birds.Our little
part of the word is a busy place with song birds in the spring, summers and fall—and the bright
Cardinals,Jays and other birds at the feeders in the winter.There are plenty of ground cover and native
plant growth on our property—and it has not changed much since Mrs. Smith managed the land over
three decades ago.
I do not see why the Village Trustees cannot put in speed bumps to control traffic,allow fences to
protect gardeners,and live and let live. The Lyme disease issue is interesting, as the most credible
scientific studies show that killing deer in an effort to reduce risk of this disease makes no sense.
Although Mayor Supron believes the number of deer in the village has grown significantly, a population
2
Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DENS.Community Response Mary&Guy Tabacchi(p.77-79)Page- 79
study carried out in 2000 showed the population to be between 170 and 200,the same level Mayor
Supron claims it is now. It is hard to believe that our mayor claims that this horrible killing program is
justified in part because deer or deer scat threaten our water quality, when fertilized and chemically
treated lawns are prevalent in our village.
After attending many meetings and reading the DEIS,we believe the deer killing program is little more
than an expensive,divisive, and ill-considered experiment—one designed to test a theory that seems to
have little basis in fact. The DEIS is rife with poorly collected data, misconstrued data and poorly
analyzed information. Given the flawed process that produced it,this makes sense. We can do better for
our community.The trustees have not done their jobs, and this plan needs to go back to the drawing
board.
Respectfully
Mary and uG y Tabacchi
3
Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DENS:Community Response
Alexandra Giordano(p. 80)-Page 80
12/14/10
To: Village of Cayuga Heights Board of Trustees
Ithaca, New York 14850
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS) for Cayuga Heights' Deer
Management Plan
I live on just over the border from Cayuga Heights, and 1 am very
concerned about the Cayuga Heights deer-killing program. I have anywhere from five to
fourteen deer in my yard daily. I enjoy them, as do two of my close neighbors. I know the
personalities of these deer and their family groups, and I have named several of them. I
have watched a young buck take care of an orphan fawn, with it nursing at any mother
that would let it. The fawn grew into a healthy young buck who now also cares for fawns.
I have named him Anthony, in honor of my favorite uncle. I have watched other fawns
grow up as well, and have taken over 8,000 photos of the deer in my yard since May,
2008. 1 even made a poster and greeting cards of some of my favorite photos that I
donated to the SPCA to help them fundraise.
I feel like the deer in my yard are part of my home now and I will be devastated if they
are baited into Cayuga Heights and killed. My neighbor and 1 have attended many
meetings and hearings and spoken publicly, but looking at the DEIS, I feel our concerns
have been ignored in the decision-making process. This seems unfair, especially since the
deer in our yards are known to travel into the village, and have even been spotted in the
yard of the Tabacchis, who live on the Parkway and who also care about the deer and
have spoken out.
1 would much rather see a birth control used than slaughtering poor innocent animals. At
one public forum, I went to the podium and offered the village $10,000 from my small
family foundation toward an alternative method of controlling the deer population. 1
know they have received at least one other similar offer. But it doesn't appear these offers
were taken seriously, as I never heard back from the mayor or any of the trustees, and I
don't see these offers discussed anywhere in the DEIS.
I live across the street from the Northeast Elementary School and am also very concerned
with any shots being fired in my area.
Alexandra Giordano
Ithaca, NY 14850
Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS:Community Response Catherine Stein(p.81-82)-Page 81
Deer Management Plan in Cayuga Heights and its environmental ramifications
--Comments on the DEIS--
December 15, 2010
1 am writing as a resident of the Village of Cayuga Heights, an Ithaca native who grew up
in this community, and the mother of two young children. I have lived away from Ithaca
for many years, but chose to return to this community in large part because of the
culture and environment I value so dearly. I had hoped for my own children to
experience and enjoy a similar upbringing to mine.
This is a community with a cultural heritage characterized by sharing and coexisting
peacefully, solving problems together constructively and creatively, listening
respectfully to each others' concerns, working together with their elected officials to
solve problems and to make the community a better place in which to live, in which to
raise their children, in which to grow old.
The vast majority of people in the community who complain about deer are those who
have yards unprotected by adequate fencing to prevent the animals from browsing on
their plants. Although drastically reducing the deer population in the village might have
a positive environmental impact for gardeners without adequate fencing, it is not
guaranteed that the deer left after the culling by killing is carried out will not continue to
seek food in unprotected yards.
There are others in the village who actually enjoy the deer and feel connected to them,
especially the family groups that they see daily in their yards.They fear the trauma it
will cause them, and their children and grandchildren, to have these animals rounded up
and shot in their near vicinity.
There are also many people who fear for their safety, their children's safety, their
parents' safety, their neighbors' safety. They are experiencing fear about the use of
firearms in such a densely populated community, where children play and walk to and
from school; where elderly people take leisurely walks, where bicyclists and joggers are
out and about both morning and night, where people walk their dogs, where people go
to and from work. They believe their once safe environment will become one in which
they will no longer feel comfortable to walk, move about, and play freely in.
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement specifies that increased security measures
will be taken during the killing periods, with stepped-up police force involvement. This
only serves to prove the higher risks to safety that the killing actions will impose, and to
validate the inhabitants' fears about safety in their environment, rather than to allay
those fears.
I personally will not allow the killing of deer on my own property or the discharge of
Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS:Community Response Catherine Stein(p. 81-82)-Page 82
firearms within 500 feet of my home, and I believe many, if not most, other village
residents will also disallow discharging of firearms, for whatever reason, in such close
proximity to their homes.
There are also many people, myself included, who fearthe message and its
ramifications that this violence will give to their children —which is that we solve our
problems by shooting them. Although this is a prevalent credo in many circles in
America, I don't believe it is in Ithaca. And I don't believe most of us want to pass that
credo down to our children.
Rounding up deer and shooting them with bolts or bullets right in our village will
severely damage the core of the community of Ithaca, its cultural fabric, its self image
and the self images of the people residing within.
The deer-killing plan for Cayuga Heights specifies that the locations and times of the
deer shooting will not be disclosed, compounding the fears of the villagers, and indeed
the rest of Ithaca. Cayuga Heights is a part of Ithaca, and bullets, like the deer, do not
stop in their tracks when reaching the village borders.
I cannot imagine any environmental impact more threatening to a community than the
imposition of violence, trauma, fear, and distrust; imbuing its constituency with a feeling
of complete powerlessness, as the village officials carry out this violent, trauma-causing,
and highly disputed plan against the wishes of a substantial portion of its constituency.
The Cayuga Heights community will effectively be destroyed by the imposition of an
experimental and likely ineffectual annual mass slaughter in the village.
The community has already been divided by these controversial plans. Neighbors who
congenially got along for years, for decades or more, are already polarized, forced to
either keep their opinions and feelings to themselves, or risk conflict by airing their fears
and concerns.
Catherine Stein
Ithaca NY
Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS.Community Response Catherine Stein(p. 81-82)-Page 82
firearms within 500 feet of my home, and I believe many, if not most, other village
residents will also disallow discharging of firearms, for whatever reason, in such close
proximity to their homes.
There are also many people, myself included, who fear the message and its
ramifications that this violence will give to their children —which is that we solve our
problems by shooting them. Although this is a prevalent credo in many circles in
America, I don't believe it is in Ithaca. And I don't believe most of us want to pass that
credo down to our children.
Rounding up deer and shooting them with bolts or bullets right in our village will
severely damage the core of the community of Ithaca, its cultural fabric, its self image
and the self images of the people residing within.
The deer-killing plan for Cayuga Heights specifies that the locations and times of the
deer shooting will not be disclosed, compounding the fears of the villagers, and indeed
the rest of Ithaca. Cayuga Heights is a part of Ithaca, and bullets, like the deer, do not
stop in their tracks when reaching the village borders.
I cannot imagine any environmental impact more threatening to a community than the
imposition of violence, trauma, fear, and distrust; imbuing its constituency with a feeling
of complete powerlessness, as the village officials carry out this violent, trauma-causing,
and highly disputed plan against the wishes of a substantial portion of its constituency.
The Cayuga Heights community will effectively be destroyed by the imposition of an
experimental and likely ineffectual annual mass slaughter in the village.
The community has already been divided by these controversial plans. Neighbors who
congenially got along for years, for decades or more, are already polarized, forced to
either keep their opinions and feelings to themselves, or risk conflict by airing their fears
and concerns.
Catherine Stein
Ithaca NY