HomeMy WebLinkAboutJ. LaVeck 1-10-11 - draft environmental impact statement .pdf_ "8. l ,(11 sa-... Tw npib
MiIIbn>ok.Ncw Y"'" 11$4S.(II 29
T~ f()-(in -.!J4l
f AX 1Uo671.,orn;
, II --__ S. 00l 1Old, I'Ll).
6 December 2O tO
Cary Institute
of Ecosystem Studies
Tv. Village of Cayu ga Heights BoaJ'd of Tru stees
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Stlilement, c.yuga H~i ghts Deer Manag='lent
PIon
I am II research scientist who has devoted much o f the past twenty years 10
und e rstanding the trology of Lyme d iBeillll.' a n d o ther tidI:-bome infections (tee
hnRiUwww,ecosludjes,ori/prop!e sci os!fdd.html), I have cardully read all!lections
of y(lUt DElS ~ainin g t 9 the potentia] impacts of I'tIanOIgement opnon., on ticka and
tick-borne disel$!!. lhe DElS contains many inaccurate and unsupported ~Ialements
abou t relationships between deer, blacklegged ticks (incorreo.:tl y called W deer ticb"),
and Lyme disease. For example, page 2-10 inc:oned:ly s l ates that linear rorreJations
n ist ~ deer and tida. A rom prehm&ive review ollhe scientific liteT'ature on the
rel a tionship between n umbers of deer and numbers o f ticks reveals that the majority o f
s tudies find I'I(l statistica l correlation a t a ll (-= Ostfeld, R.5. 2011. Lyme diseue: the
ecology of II comple>; sys t em. Oxford UniV('J'$ity Press. New Yo rk.). lhe 1ack o f a
correlation derives from the fo llowing facts: (1) deer do not infect ticks with Lyme
bacteria, and actua1ly redu ce the infection prevalence in tick populations; (2 ) adult
bladrJegged ticks feed on .1 lea s t 27 different specie5 of mammals and are not s pecialists
o n white-tailed deer; (3) when deer populationll are wiled, ti cks crowd onto the
remaining d eer, resulting in s imilar total n umbem of tick meals; and (4) even when deer
affect ~ number of eggs laid by ..dul t ticks and resul ting a bundance 01 Jarv~
numbers of larvae d o not predict n umbers of nympn. (n ympn. are responsible lor
transmitting Lyme disease to people).
On ~ge 3-5. the document ci tes t he Monhegan Island (Maine) study to P'o;.:..."'t what
might happen in C.yuga Heights. This Is misleading. On Monheg.a.n Island, the deer
herd was hWlted &om 100 to zero individuals. No o ther host anirna.ls for the .dult
stage of the tick were PIe8e rrt on the island . ll"Iereiore, with no other ~ on which to
complete their life cycle, the blacklegged ticks declined dramatically. But when deer
have been culled on mainland l ites, management never achieves extirpation of deer,
-.nod the remaining deer pJllIlI'WIy o t her hosts ~u pport adult ticks. Therefore, control of
ticb is weak to f'IOI"oeI<istent. Moreover, although mention is made of deer thresholds in
the non-peet"-reviewed literature, no scientific data support the existence of a deer
deruJity threshold below whicfl ticks decline to low numbers. Scientific IiteTalW"e on
whicfl my ,tatements are based can be found in the book cited above.
I refrain from COlTlll'lmting on other atguments COI'I('el'tling the bertefits of rolling deer.
However, to theextent that the justification II balled on the notion that reduc:ed Lyme
di$ease lnctdl'f\Ol! will result, the document is deeply flawed.
I would be happy 10 address quetllions should any arise.
Sincerely,
11))
Richard S. Ostfeld, P\lD
5eftior Scientist