Dear :

I urge you to reverse the decision to allow deer hunting in [location]. Such cruel and senseless slaughter of deer will not solve any of the problems you claim exist.

It is a well-known fact that killing will not reduce the population. The figures speak for themselves: Since 1974, when the CT Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) changed the status of deer in Connecticut from "nuisance" animal to "game" animal, the state's deer population has soared from 6,000 to over 80,000 (DEP's own figures). These numbers prove that hunting is not working to decrease the deer herd in Connecticut. It's not a solution to a problem, but simply one of several "management" tools that DEP employs to create larger herds, which DEP then uses to justify sport hunting to the unsuspecting public.

A lethal method would require killing deer indefinitely, and killing increasing number of them to maintain a stable population. It would have a serious biological impact as well as a negative impact on deer social structure caused by the killing of dominant does. It would increase auto-deer collisions during each kill season, a fact supported by insurance statistics. It would pose a significant safety threat by the presence of shooters. Statistics from the Watchung Reservation Reports reinforce concerns about accuracy, the behavior of shooters in the field, and poaching. A hunt could trigger immigration of deer from surrounding areas. It would have an unknown and possible negative impact on the ecosystem. It would be extremely brutal and inhumane. Professional shooters do not consistently drop deer in their tracks. Bow and arrow methods have a 50% failure and crippling rate.

There are several immunocontraceptive protocols that have been proven effective in reducing deer populations. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has demonstrated this in projects at Fire Island, New York, and at The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Maryland. The HSUS can evaluate New Canaan to determine whether it would be a potential site for an immunocontraceptive project. A gradual and limited reduction in deer numbers through the use of immunocontraception would be less drastic, less expensive and humane. It would be more biologically sound in addressing the birth rate directly. Deer numbers requiring maintenance contraception and associated costs would decline over time. It would not disturb the social structure of deer. It would have no lasting biological impact because it is reversible. It would begin the process of aging the deer population, thus increasing natural mortality. It would not pose a safety threat to the community. And it would be nonviolent and would addresses the cultural sensitivities of the broader community.

The issue of landscape browsing by deer is a private concern and should not be the financial responsibility of the Township. Deer will feed opportunistically on landscaping even though natural foods are plentiful, especially if unprotected vegetable gardens and ornamentals are in their established food path. A deer kill will not safeguard individual homeowners because the remaining animals will still seek their preferred foods and browse on unprotected landscaping in their food path. Residents should be responsible for choosing deer resistant shrubs and using other ecologically friendly self-help methods. The Township can partner with residents by providing public education and facilitating access to appropriate products and services.

The claim that deer are contributing to increased cases of Lyme disease in [location] is unfounded because there is no scientific evidence that deer cause or are the primary transmitters of Lyme disease. Furthermore, reducing deer herd will not reduce the tick population. One expert states that reducing the deer population by as much as 90% will only reduce the tick population by 10%. There is no data to suggest that this reduction in the tick population would impact the incidence of Lyme disease at all. Experts agree that Lyme disease is transmitted by Ixodes scapularis ticks and that these ticks have many hosts in addition to deer, including mice, squirrels, birds, cats, and dogs. Experts all agree that educating the public about personal protection is the best defense against Lyme disease.

I urge the [location] government to take an ethical approach to human-deer conflicts by implementing nonviolent measures that preserve the habitat and keep our towns and woodlands safe for us and the creatures who live there. Hiring snipers will have a negative effect on traffic safety, public health, public safety, and wildlife habitat. The proposed method of population control by killing is inappropriate, ineffective, costly, inhumane and unethical.



Sincerely,

Back