02-25-2005, 12:49 AM
<http://www.ctsportsmen.com/images/but_hunt_sm.gif> Greenwich Deer Sharpshooting eyed for deer control. UPDATE
Town issues warning ahead of the shooting of deer
By Hoa Nguyen Staff Writer February 15, 2005
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/loc...4829.story
Amid questions about the size of the town's estimated deer population, Greenwich officials expect to begin mailing notices today informing neighbors of three town properties that sharpshooting of deer will begin sometime between now and the end of next month.
That notification is a requirement of state officials who on Thursday gave the town permission to kill as many deer as it could lure to the three properties: the Pomerance-Montgomery Pinetum Park, Babcock Preserve and Griffith E. Harris Golf Course.
Greenwich, the first municipality in the state to receive permission to use sharpshooters to kill deer, must first inform neighbors whose properties abut the parcels and provide details about the program, including where and what times the sharpshooting will occur. The town also expects to update its Web site with more information about the program, officials said.
Last week, Howard Kilpatrick, a wildlife biologist with the state Department of Environmental Protection, revealed that he had made an error in coming up with 2001 estimates of Greenwich's deer population, inflating figures by as much as 43 percent.
Kilpatrick now estimates that at the time, data from an aerial survey showed there were up to 68 deer in a square mile of backcountry, not 120 as previously estimated.
Officials have said the ideal deer population would be 26 deer per square mile.
But even the corrected estimate is high compared with more recent data.
A few weeks ago Kilpatrick climbed aboard a helicopter for a second aerial survey and counted fewer deer than four years ago.
The helicopter in this year's survey flew over a slightly different area and covered fewer miles than the one in 2001, complicating the comparison between the data, he said.
Using a method that attempts to account for the differences in the paths taken by the two helicopters, Kilpatrick puts this year's deer population about 20 percent less than the population in 2001. That may mean efforts by hunters have put a dent in the deer population in the last four years.
But even those figures may understate the decline in the deer population. Comparing average deer densities between the two aerial surveys -- regardless of the flight paths taken -- shows a difference of up to 32 percent fewer deer this year. That places population estimates at about 46 deer in a square mile of backcountry.
Kilpatrick said that because of the variability in the deer population, none of the figures are precise.
"The thing to emphasize is they're estimates," he said.
Aerial surveys are a way of estimating deer population, but they make lack precision, given problems such as replicating a helicopter's path, said Willie J. Suchy, a wildlife biologist in Iowa who has done many such surveys in his state.
"It's not the easiest thing to accomplish," he said, adding that he endorses using average deer densities as the easiest way to compare two sets of data.
At the same time, interpreting aerial surveys require from three to five years worth of data, Suchy said, adding that without that much data, it's difficult to say there's a trend.
"It's tough to say with just two counts exactly what is going on," he said.
As town officials are busy making preparations for the sharpshooting, some town residents said they still back the program even in light of recent evidence showing fewer deer in Greenwich.
"Our property is overwhelmed with deer," said Mark Samuel, a District 8/Cos Cob Representative Town Meeting delegate who was among the majority that approved $47,000 for the program in December.
Almost every night that he walks his dog, he will see deer grazing in his front yard, which is about a block from Pomerance, Samuel said.
"Even with the changes with the numbers, the deer population is still much higher than what people would say could be supported by a square mile of land," he said.
State backs deer kill plan
By Hoa Nguyen Staff Writer February 11, 2005
Greenwich could start killing deer as early as next week, officials said yesterday.
State officials yesterday faxed a letter authorizing the town to be the first municipality in the state to kill as many deer as hired sharpshooters can lure to three town-owned properties between now and the end of March.
"We have a little more planning to do," First Selectman Jim Lash said. "We will know in another few days, or a week, much more precisely when we will go forward."
Before the killing can begin, the town must first notify next-door neighbors of the Pomerance-Montgomery Pinetum Park, Babcock Pre-serve and the Griffith E. Harris Golf Course, of its plans.
Officials also said they will be working on plans to keep the public away from those areas during the shooting.
"In addition to posting the parks as closed, we would also have police officers there to remind people that the parks are closed," Lash said.
Sharpshooters and police also will find the safest locations for the shots to be fired, such as areas that have a hill as a backdrop, said Conservation Director Denise Savageau.
Sharpshooters, who will use firearms with a sound suppressor, will sit on tree stands in the Babcock Preserve. At the other properties, they will stand on top of pickup trucks, Savageau said.
"It's more efficient," she said of the trucks. "It's easy to get in and out."
The scheduling of the shooting also will depend on Moodus-based White Buffalo Inc., which was hired to do the work.
The firm's owner, Anthony DeNicola, said yesterday that his crew just finished a job in Iowa and today are headed to Ohio for six weeks, where they estimate they will kill about 600 deer.
"We're in a position to split our field crew in two," he said, adding that he and up to two others will likely break from the Ohio assignment and head to Greenwich for a week or so.
Details still must be worked out from specific contract terms to field procedures, he said. DeNicola has said he expects to kill up to 70 deer from all three town properties.
Although officials had thought for months that parts of Greenwich were home to up to 120 deer per square mile, a state biologist earlier this week revealed that a calculation error had inflated estimates of Greenwich's deer population by up to 43 percent. The corrected figures show there are from 52.5 to 68 deer per square mile in parts of Greenwich.
That's still too many deer, officials said, citing the damage caused by deer eating too much of the forest vegetation, causing car accidents and playing host to the ticks that cause Lyme disease.
State admits error in deer counting
By Hoa Nguyen Staff Writer February 10, 2005
In only months, nearly half of Greenwich's estimated deer herd has been eliminated, all without a shot fired or an arrow flying.
"There was a miscalculation," said Howard Kilpatrick, a state Department of Environmental Protection biologist.
Last year Kilpatrick published a study estimating the town's deer population at up to 120 deer per square mile in the backcountry. But a calculation error that went undetected until a few days ago meant those estimates were inflated by as much as 43 percent, Kilpatrick said yesterday.
The corrected figures show that there are 68 deer in a square mile of backcountry and 52.5 deer in a square mile of midcountry north of the Post Road, he said.
In December, the Representative Town Meeting voted by a 3-2 margin to hire a sharpshooter to reduce the deer population. Since then, municipal officials have been seeking permission from the state Department of Environmental Protection to carry out the sharpshooting this month.
"This is quite a monkey wrench because we have different figures now," said Elizabeth Campbell, a District 5/Riverside RTM delegate.
"The vote may have been different," Campbell said, adding that as part of the presentation to convince RTM members, supporters cited the now discredited herd figures. "People say 'Yikes, that's a lot of deer per square mile.' "
But other municipal officials said the revised figures still show that deer overpopulation is a problem. State officials who are close to a decision on the sharpshooting also said the discrepancy won't affect their decision.
"It concerns me," Dale May, director of DEP's wildlife division, said of the calculation error. "But it really doesn't change things. It's not like all of a sudden, there's fewer deer than there were before."
Overabundant deer, which have few natural predators, invite swarms of Lyme-disease-carrying ticks, lead to an increase in traffic accidents, and wreak havoc on forest biodiversity by devouring ground cover and shrubs that other animals depend on, according to the Greenwich Conservation Commission. The commission last year recommended the town reduce its deer herd to fewer than 26 deer a square mile.
"The fact is the damage is out there," Conservation Director Denise Savageau said. "Now we know it doesn't take 120 deer per mile, it only takes 70 deer per mile."
Kilpatrick said he discovered the error a few days ago after he climbed aboard a helicopter, at the expense of the Greenwich Sportsmen and Landowners Association, for an aerial survey of the deer herd. The hunting group wanted estimates of the deer herd updated from what Kilpatrick published last year and based on data from a 2001 helicopter ride.
Researchers ride on a helicopter over sections of town and count the deer they see. Those counts are then plugged into a formula to estimate the overall herd for the town.
Kilpatrick said that in running the calculations from last week's helicopter count, he discovered that erroneous numbers were used into the formula to produce the 2001 calculations.
"Everyone's human," Kilpatrick said. "Everyone makes an error."
The Greenwich Sportsmen and Landowners Association has in the past opposed the hiring of the sharpshooter because its members said they could do as good a job of reducing the population through hunting. But yesterday, John Michelotti, the group's secretary, said he respected the town's decision to hire a sharpshooter and didn't think the RTM's decision would have been any different had the correct numbers been published initially.
"Maybe they're half of what they are but they're still two and a half times what they should be," Michelotti said.
Deer culling program may be delayed
By Hoa Nguyen Staff Writer December 19, 2004
Now that Greenwich has approved money to hire sharpshooters and kill deer as part of a cull planned for February, the town is in jeopardy of not receiving the required state permit in time.
"We knew it would be close," Conservation Director Denise Savageau said.
The Representative Town Meeting last week approved a controversial plan to spend $47,000 to buy supplies and hire Hamden-based White Buffalo Inc. to kill 200 or more deer at Griffith E. Harris Memorial Golf Course, Babcock Preserve and Pomerance-Montgomery Pinetum Park. The next step, which Savageau said will happen this week, is to apply for a permit from the state Department of Environmental Protection.
But with the upcoming holidays, state review of the permit application may have to wait until next month, officials said. That puts Greenwich at risk of not being able to start its sharpshooting program in the first week of February, which is the period town officials were targeting. Some state wildlife officials expressed doubts about meeting that date.
"I don't know if anybody can give you a definitive yes or no," said Michael Gregonis, a DEP wildlife biologist who is not familiar with Greenwich's plans but works with other municipalities on controlling the deer population.
"There's a lot of things it has to go through, a lot of hands it has to go through, a lot of review teams," he said. "It's probably unlikely to implement for the first week in February."
State officials said they want to take their time with this application because Greenwich would be the first municipality in Connecticut to seek to kill deer through means besides licensed hunting and trapping.
In the past, deer were killed by licensed hunters and trappers, who are limited by the state from killing too many at one time and hunting during certain daytime hours.
A state law passed in 2003 gives the DEP commissioner authority to permit Greenwich to bait and lure, at night, 200 or more deer to an area where sharpshooters, equipped with sound suppressers and night-vision goggles, will gun them down.
As part of the review process, Greenwich will be asked to put together a package of information, including statistics on its deer herd and the strategies the municipality explored to cull the deer population.
"Greenwich has enough -- they have more information than most towns," said Howard Kilpatrick, a DEP biologist. "They should be in good shape in terms of putting that thing together and providing the necessary documentation."
Ultimately, the decision rests with the state DEP commissioner, said Kilpatrick, who has previously worked with White Buffalo Inc. on other projects and has a close working relationship with Greenwich officials, having led a town-sponsored, two-year study on the town's deer herd in 2001.
The recommendations made in that study earned the endorsement of the Greenwich Conservation Commission, which advised town officials to immediately begin culling its deer population.
A few months ago, Savageau, the conservation director, met with other officials, including First Selectman Jim Lash and the heads of the parks and recreation and police departments. They agreed sharpshooting should be the town's first step toward culling the herd because it would kill many deer at one time and during a period when the town-owned properties can be closed, giving them more control over the cull, officials said.
"Safety, of course, is one of the most important issues," Lash said. "That's why the police department and the parks department have been involved."
But before officials could go ahead with the plan, they sought financial approval last month from the Board of Estimate and Taxation and then the RTM, which Lash said was his way of giving people a chance to speak their minds at a public hearing.
"We've been studying this for four years and we know we have a serious overpopulation of deer, we know we have a serious Lyme disease problem, we know we have a serious traffic problem related with deer," Lash said. "I very purposely brought this to the BET, RTM as a supplemental appropriation so that we can exactly have the debate that we have."
At last week's RTM meeting, approval of the sharpshooting program carried by a 3-2 margin, with 112 favorable votes.
In District 8/Cos Cob, approval was tight, with 13 in favor, 12 against and one abstention. But the measure passed solidly in areas such as backcountry, Riverside and Old Greenwich and was defeated in District1/Central, District 2/Harbor, District 3/Byram and District 12/Havemeyer.
Dean Goss, chairman of the District 1/Central delegation, said opinions on the subject differed, from those opposed to the idea of killing to people like him, who were skeptical that culling deer on three properties would thin the overall herd overpopulating other parts of town.
"I was just dubious about the way they were going about it," he said. "Even if you void an area, you can't expect to thin an adjacent area."
While the specifics of when, where and how the sharpshooting program will be carried out were not discussed at the RTM meeting, Goss said he had some concerns.
"I am afraid there might be enough people strongly opposed to it that they might try to interfere with it," he said. "I'm sure everybody who realizes what is going on is going to be concerned about it until they can actually see that it can be carried out without dire circumstances."
Town officials, such as Lash, said they are not planning on holding more public hearings, but will send word once the town has the permit and officials have set a schedule for the sharpshooting.
"Once we have the permit, (police and park officials) will take the action to keep people safe," he said.
Lash also said that if the town doesn't get the permit in time for February, officials can try again in 2006.
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/loc...8224.story
RTM approves deer killing
By Hoa Nguyen Staff Writer December 14, 2004
Greenwich officials voted last night to pay sharpshooters to cull deer in three town parks, moving the town one step closer to being the first in the state to do so.
During the two-hour Representative Town Meeting debate at Central Middle School, speakers favoring the move swapped motherly accounts of children troubled by pain and neurological problems brought on by deer-tick-borne Lyme disease with those opponents who had their depiction of sharpshooters luring deer in the middle of the night before stunning them with floodlights and then gunning them down.
"If we vote for this proposal tonight, I fully expect that it will be reported in the New York media that Greenwich has gone out and hired somebody else to do our dirty work," warned James Boutelle, a District 8/Cos Cob delegate to the RTM. "We can fully expect an ongoing blackeye from this."
The motion to approve the funds for the sharpshooting program carried with 61 percent of the 184 voting members present.
Last month the Conservation Commission asked for an increase of $47,000 to its consulting budget to pay a sharpshooter and the supplies required to cull deer on three town parks. The sharpshooting, planned for the first week in February, also requires a permit from the Department of Environmental Protection, which has not yet been issued but if approved, would make Greenwich the first municipality in Connecticut to thin its deer herd through baiting and sharpshooting.
Prior to the passage of a state law last year, the culling of deer were mostly limited to licensed hunting and trapping. The DEP now has the authority to permit municipalities to use methods not open to hunters and trappers, such as the use of a high-powered rifle equipped with sound suppressers and shooting past dusk.
Unlike hunting, which is only allowed from September through January, the proposed sharpshooting would be for the first week of February at the Griffith E. Harris Memorial Golf Course, Babcock Preserve and Pomerance-Montgomery Pinetum Park.
Overabundant deer, who have few natural predators, need to be managed because their large numbers invite swarms of Lyme-disease-carrying ticks, lead to an increase in traffic accidents, and wreak havoc on forest biodiversity by devouring ground cover and shrubs that other animals and plants depend on to live, the commission said.
Greenwich doesn't currently allow hunting on town property, and deer-management activities have been limited to private landowners opening their land to recreational hunters.
The proposal has attracted opponents, such as Karen Sadik-Khan, a District 6/Old Greenwich RTM delegate who objected to the plan of hiring sharpshooters who will do their work at night and use bait to lure deer.
"There's a certain amount of violence with luring deer," she said.
Bow hunters also came out against the plan, which they said was extravagant and ineffective because it seeks to cull deer on three town properties instead of over a larger area.
"This plan is destined to failure from the start," said Jeff Stempien, who also is a Greenwich police detective.
But the plan also received the support of several mothers whose children were stricken with Lyme Disease.
"It completely stole the life of my child," said Diane Blanchard, who besides contracting the disease herself looked on for six years while her three children battled the disease, including one who was bitten a second time and had a secondary infection.
Deb Siciliano brought her daughter Amanda to address the RTM about their fears of contracting the disease while playing soccer near the woods.
"Our town cannot have one more child robbed of their childhood because of this insidious disease," Siciliano said. http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/loc...0539.story
Town money for culling deer can be better spent December 13, 2004
To the editor:
At its meeting tonight, the Representative Town Meeting will consider approving the proposal to hire White Buffalo to reduce the deer herds in selected town parks. Because of our long-term involvement with this issue, the Greenwich Sportsmen and Landowners' Association feels the obligation to express its views. The organization respectfully disagrees with this proposal.
GSLA has been at the forefront of this issue for 12 years. In only three years we have achieved an increase of more than 300 percent in deer taken by bow-hunters in town. The driving force for the success of our program has been the GSLA's efforts to organize and manage local hunters; find volunteer businesses and petition the Department of Environmental Protection to set up check stations at those businesses; purchase and locate a walk-in cooler to make it convenient for hunters to take deer; find and negotiate with a butcher to process the deer; develop a relationship with the Fairfield County Food Bank and their client soup kitchens; coordinate with the state Hunter's for the Hungry Program;, and make and maintain relationships with many landowners.
Other Connecticut towns have emulated our program.
We are proud of our ongoing partnership with the National Audubon Society to reduce the deer herd in Audubon's flagship sanctuary in Greenwich. GSLA's detailed management reporting has been instrumental in helping Audubon achieve their program goals.
In addition to the above, the following hunting regulation changes have been made in recent years to address the overpopulation.
1. A lesser-weapons option allowing bow-hunters to hunt during the four-week gun and muzzleloader season.
2. Unlimited doe tags, allowing hunters to take unlimited number of does to focus on the most effective means of population reduction.
3. January hunting, which increases the hunting season by four weeks.
4. Baiting, which allows more effective hunting during December and January.
These initiatives are now beginning to work as intended to reduce the deer population. The dramatic increase in deer taken is testament to their effectiveness.
GSLA disagrees with the decision to hire White Buffalo for the following reasons:
* There is no townwide comprehensive plan to address the deer overpopulation. The parks in question represent less than 1 percent of the land in Greenwich. The killing of deer in these three town parks will have no effect in any other areas of town.
* If $47,000 is going to be spent on deer reduction, it can be spent more productively by using it to develop a townwide plan and instituting that plan throughout town. The per-deer cost of using White Buffalo is extravagant.
* By arbitrarily killing deer that come to the bait stations, including bucks, does, young and old, a healthy herd dynamic is likely to be severely damaged.
* We disagree with use of any firearms in Greenwich.
GSLA commends the selectmen and the conservation director on their efforts to address the deer population, and the group looks forward to continuing an excellent relationship with them. We do, however, respectfully disagree with this strategy and tactic without the benefit of a townwide comprehensive plan.
John Michelotti
Secretary, Greenwich Sportsmen and Landowners' Association
Brutality for deer December 10, 2004
To the editor:
I am deeply shocked that The Advocate supports the killing of deer by sharpshooters in municipal parks (editorial, Dec. 9). This is the most brutal measure to eliminate from our natural environment the most innocent inhabitants -- defenseless animals.
It is one thing for ignorant bureaucrats to propose such senseless killings, but for a responsible newspaper to support such a fallacy is, to put it mildly, irresponsible.
This in the season of love and joy where the symbolism of the reindeer doesn't seem to have penetrated The Advocate's sense of environmental priorities. Next the newspaper will suggest eliminating people because we have overpopulation in this world. Shame on you!
Harald Goering Darien
Sharpshooters also can be hazard December 9, 2004
To the editor:
I strongly agree with Craig Koproski's letter Nov. 28 about hiring sharpshooters to control the deer population. A person who fires a rifle at a target doesn't always hit the target, and one that ricochets can easily kill someone who is either standing nearby or walking in the woods.
Who will take responsibility in town when a person is injured or killed by a stray bullet?
Town officials should do some rethinking on this subject.
Richard Petrizzi Greenwich
With night-vision goggles and high-powered rifles, Greenwich stalks a new foe
December 15, 2004 Associated Press By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN
Associated Press Writer
Greenwich, a wealthy Connecticut town that cherishes its privacy and tranquility, is up in arms over a foe who is menacing its dear land.
The New York suburb plans to gun down this enemy in the middle of the night. Sharpshooters with silencers will lure the creatures out with bait at a golf course, a park and a preserve.
Greenwich is aiming to become the first municipality in Connecticut to thin its deer herd through sharpshooting and baiting.
A recent study found up to 120 deer per square mile in some parts of town, compared to a normal population of 10 to 15. The deer are particularly concentrated in the exclusive "backcountry" - known for its sprawling estates and such residents as Ron Howard and Mel Gibson.
But the deer hunting proposal, authorized by a new law, is angering animal rights activists who say the privileged should learn to coexist with the animals and not worry so much about their azalea bushes.
"They want a deer massacre," said Priscilla Feral, president of Friends of Animals in Darien. "We're in a very privileged part of the country. They don't want to be inconvenienced by deer."
But supporters include mothers of children with Lyme disease, blamed on ticks carried by deer.
"It completely stole the life of my child," said Diane Blanchard, who has the disease along with her three children, the Greenwich Time reported.
She spoke at a meeting Monday in which town officials voted to hire the help.
Greenwich officials deny the deer hunt is to protect fancy landscaping, but they are mindful of the town's image.
"If we vote for this proposal tonight, I fully expect that it will be reported in the New York media that Greenwich has gone out and hired somebody else to do our dirty work," warned James Boutelle, a town delegate.
The town, which must apply for a state permit, plans to kill up to 200 deer in February. The deer meat will be given to soup kitchens.
Deer culling is not new in suburbs overrun by deer, but it had been generally limited to private hunts. A state law passed last year allows towns to use new methods, including sharpshooting during the night with high-powered rifles, night-vision goggles and spotlights.
Sharpshooting of deer by cities and towns is on the rise around the country. Solon, Ohio, in October approved the largest city-backed deer killing in the state, and a proposal will be voted on next spring to allow hunters to shoot deer in Georgia's state parks.
Studies show a direct correlation between the number of deer and the rate of Lyme disease, said Denise Savageau, the town's conservation director.
The overabundance of deer also harms other animals by devouring plants and shrubs and causing a growing number of car accidents, officials said.
"We're losing certain song birds. We're losing wild flowers," Savageau said.
A survey found that 74 percent of residents support such a program, Savageau said.
"We thought it would be the safest and most effective way," Savageau said. "We have to look at not just an individual animal but all the animals and the whole ecosystem."
Bow hunters also oppose the plan, which they said was extravagant and ineffective because it culls deer on three town properties instead of a larger area.
Opponents say the deer will return to Greenwich.
"When you have nice estates in Greenwich and people use fancy shrubbery, they're going to draw deer," Feral said. "They would have to eradicate deer and put a fence around the town and they're not going to do that."
http://www.ctnow.com/news/local/statewir...4102.story
Doing what's necessary with deer
December 5, 2004 Editorial
Animal-rights activists and local hunters have spoken out against a plan by the town to hire sharpshooters to reduce the number of deer on three municipal properties. The fact that people who often are adversaries dislike the idea may give pause to officials considering whether to approve the proposal. To us, however, this initiative is worth trying, in part because it makes use of the only notable state response we've seen to the problem of deer overpopulation.
A state law passed last year by the General Assembly allows municipalities to seek a state permit to reduce the number of deer by using rifles equipped with sound suppressers and shooting past dusk. The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection does not allow use of such methods for hunters.
The plan developed by Greenwich's Conservation Commission would involve hiring White Buffalo Inc., a Hamden wildlife management company, to have sharpshooters kill deer at Griffith E. Harris Memorial Golf Course, Babcock Preserve and Pomerance-Montgomery Pinetum Park. The week-long deer-culling effort, which could occur as soon as February, would target an estimated 200 deer, which then would be butchered and the venison donated to homeless shelters. The projected cost of the program is $47,000.
If the Representative Town Meeting approves the plan, Greenwich would become the first municipality in the state to apply for a DEP permit for deer-culling. That is a powerful incentive for the town to make this effort a success.
A controlled hunt isn't the only way the Conservation Commission is trying to remedy the problem of deer overpopulation. The commission also wants to spend $8,000 to research the use of fertility controls on deer in Greenwich. But that kind of program could be years away.
The fact our town needs to take the initiative shows that the state, which regulates wildlife management through the DEP, hasn't addressed the problem that exists in much of Connecticut. Even urban areas of the state now are dealing with issues caused by having too many deer living among us. Increases in Lyme disease from ticks carried by deer, more car and truck accidents and the relentless foraging that destroys shrubs and other plants have been cited by the town Conservation Commission.
The commission also has documented how many deer exist in Greenwich's mid-country and backcountry: between 93 and 120 per square mile. Reducing that number to 26 deer per square mile is a long-term goal that has been cited as a motive for hiring sharpshooters.
Animal-rights activists, not surprisingly, oppose any type of hunting, saying the more deer that are killed, the more likely it is that the deer birth rate will rise. We're not convinced that's the case. Furthermore, we've heard no reasonable suggestion from these activists that would reduce the number of deer in any other way. With no real natural enemies -- wolves and mountain lions haven't existed in Connecticut for many decades -- and a plentiful food supply, including landscape shrubs at many houses, deer have the good life in our town.
Local hunters don't like the plan to hire sharpshooters because they say they can do the job more cheaply. Perhaps that is true, though hiring a firm to handle the project should satisfy liability concerns about the use of high-powered rifles on town property. In addition, Denise Savageau, the town conservation director, says limiting the time of the culling to a single week is more desirable than opening town lands to rifle hunting during the regular hunting season.
We've long opposed rifle hunting in Greenwich because of the potential dangers of errant bullets in a community as developed as ours. A closely monitored, well-controlled hunt to cull deer is far from ideal. But in the absence of other ways to reduce the deer herd in town -- and the lack of state efforts to deal with the problem -- we believe the proposal the RTM will consider Dec. 13 for a vote deserves to be approved.
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/opi...7633.story
Sharpshooting eyed for deer control
By Hoa Nguyen Staff Writer November 28, 2004
Under a plan awaiting town approval -- and with its share of critics -- Greenwich could become the first municipality in the state to thin its deer herd through sharpshooting.
The Representative Town Meeting is set to vote Dec. 13 on whether to spend $47,000 to hire White Buffalo Inc., a Hamden-based wildlife-management firm, to cull deer on three town properties. If approved, and if the state issues a permit, the shooting of deer at the Griffith E. Harris Memorial Golf Course, Babcock Preserve and Pomerance-Montgomery Pinetum Park could begin as early as February, Conservation Director Denise Savageau said. It would last for about a week.
"Doing a cull, what it does is reduce the herd and then we can look at long-term maintenance," she said.
Greenwich has from 93 to 120 deer per square mile in the midcountry and backcountry, according to a report the Conservation Commission released last month outlining recommendations for managing deer in town. It may take several years to cull the herd to an ideal of 26 deer per square mile, officials said.
In the report, the commission recommended immediately reducing the deer population through the use of sharpshooting and hunting, which already takes place on private property. Continued hunting and research into birth control also would be explored to further reduce the herd, the commission said.
Overabundant deer, who have few natural predators, need to be managed because their large numbers invite swarms of Lyme-disease-carrying ticks, lead to an increase in traffic accidents, and wreak havoc on forest biodiversity by devouring ground cover and shrubs that other animals and plants depend on to live, the commission said.
Currently Greenwich doesn't allow hunting on town property and deer-management activities have been limited to private landowners opening their land to recreational hunters.
Unlike recreational hunting, which is only allowed from September through January, the proposed sharpshooting would occur a week later and be part of a deer-culling program that requires a permit from the state Department of Environmental Protection.
Under a law passed last year, municipalities can seek permission to cull deer using techniques such as firing rifles equipped with sound supressors and shooting past dusk, which hunters and trappers aren't allowed to do, said Dale May, director of DEP's wildlife division.
Greenwich is the first municipality to express interest in applying for the permit and if it does submit a formal application, officials would have to outline their plan for culling the deer and alternatives they considered, May said.
"It would be the first one we've looked at," he said.
"We want to make sure we're thorough."
Although town officials are awaiting RTM approval before finalizing a sharpshooting contract, the proposed cull would likely occur over a week and involve sharpshooters using bait and high-powered rifles, Savageau said. The cull could kill an estimated 200 deer, although that number could change as the work progresses, she said.
The town also would turn to police and other authorities to address public-safety concerns, including closing down parks for the duration of the cull, she said.
But while conservation and some finance officials have given their blessing, animal-rights activists and local hunters are critical of the proposed sharpshooting cull, although for different reasons.
"I don't believe it should be done at all because it's not going to bring the population down," said Natalie Jarnstedt, an organizer for the Citizens for Prohibition of Hunting in Greenwich, who supports exploring non-lethal methods for culling deer. "I'd rather take this $47,000 and put all of that into birth control."
Apart from the sharpshooting program, conservation officials also propose spending $8,000, already appropriated, to research the use of fertility control on deer in town.
Although there are residents opposed to killing deer, about 75 percent of people surveyed in a study used as the basis for the conservation commission's recommendations said they supported lethal methods, such as hunting and sharpshooting, Savageau said.
Members of the Greenwich Sportsmen and Landowners Association, who are thinning the herd at the Audubon Greenwich Center through bowhunting and who have jockeyed for a role in the town's plan, also are critical of the proposal. They applaud the town's swift action toward culling deer but said it was too costly.
"We just think the method they chose to do it is questionable, especially from a financial point of view," said John Michelotti, secretary of the hunting group.
Some of the proposed $47,000 will go toward paying White Buffalo Inc., a nonprofit firm headed by Anthony DeNicola, who holds a doctorate in wildlife ecology, for consulting, sharpshooting and fertility research costs, Savageau said. The firm charges from $65 to $95 an hour, according to rough pricing estimates Savageau said she received.
The other part of the money will go to pay for supplies and other costs, such as to process the venison for donation to food shelters, she said.
The sharpshooting program is planned for after the bowhunting season so it doesn't interfere with hunting on private property, Savageau said.
Officials also wanted to cull the herd using a short and intense effort, which was the reason they chose sharpshooting, which could kill as many deer in one week as hunting does in several months, she said.
"We don't want to have to shut down town property during the hunting season," Savageau said.
But Michelotti said that for less money, hunters, who don't get paid and spend $50 on butchering costs for each deer, could get the same job done.
"More than anything else, it's a waste of $47,000," he said. "It's extravagant for what's being done."
So far this season Michelotti's 24-member group has killed a total of 90 deer and expects to exceed the 100 deer killed last season, he said.
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/loc...3296.story
Biologist: Targeting does over bucks more effective
By Hoa Nguyen Staff Writer May 8, 2004
One of the best ways to decrease the deer population in Greenwich is to encourage hunters to kill more does, according to a state biologist who this week presented his findings from a two-year study.
"Getting hunters to hunt the ones they're passing on would have the greatest impact on the population," said Howard Kilpatrick, a state wildlife biologist who has been studying the town's deer population with support from the state, the University of Connecticut and the Greenwich Conservation Commission.
He appeared before a Thursday night Conservation Commission meeting in Town Hall. The commission will consider the study results before issuing recommendations sometime in June, members said.
The deer population must be curbed because the animals cause many problems, Kilpatrick said. They have a large appetite that can wipe out certain plant species, affecting other animal populations and causing ecological instability, he said. They also harbor ticks that transmit Lyme disease, and the animals cause accidents when they wander onto the road, Kilpatrick said.
"Although the topic of whether hunters should be encouraged to kill deer has always been controversial, managing deer must be a priority, if not because of health and public safety concerns then because of the ecological harm they cause," Conservation Director Denise Savageau said.
"That brings a whole host of people onboard," she said. "The ecological thing tips the scale."
Deer in parts of Greenwich number about six times more than the 15 to 20 deer that can comfortably occupy a square mile before their sheer numbers start harming the ecology and plant diversity of an area, officials said. That means in the backcountry, there are about 120 deer living in every square mile and in midcountry, there are 80 deer in every square mile.
Every year, the population grows. Kilpatrick estimated that the number of does in Greenwich grows at about 4 percent annually. If hunting were banned, that growth would jump to 23 percent.
A way to effectively decrease the population would be to kill more does. Based on that, the state is considering initiating programs such as Earn-a-Buck, which would require hunters to kill a doe before they could hunt for a buck, Kilpatrick said.
As part of the study, he surveyed homeowners to discover their preferences for deer management.
Among those who favored traditional methods of killing deer, bowhunting was preferred over firearms.
"There certainly seems to be a tendency to avoid firearms," Kilpatrick said.
But while many people supported hunting, most wanted to use nonlethal methods, such as birth control -- but few knew what that would entail, he said.
"This was their preferred option but they had no idea what the cost was and whether it would work," Kilpatrick said, adding that the cost has been pegged in one study at $564 per year per animal.
Last year, when the Audubon Greenwich Center allowed hunting at its Riversville Road property, 37 deer were killed between November and January, executive director Tom Baptist said.
The decision to allow hunting was made because the sanctuary saw an increase in ecological damage caused by the deer, he said yesterday.
"If you came out there today, I could show you parts of the forest where nothing's alive," Baptist said. "It's pretty dramatic in parts."
[signature]
Town issues warning ahead of the shooting of deer
By Hoa Nguyen Staff Writer February 15, 2005
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/loc...4829.story
Amid questions about the size of the town's estimated deer population, Greenwich officials expect to begin mailing notices today informing neighbors of three town properties that sharpshooting of deer will begin sometime between now and the end of next month.
That notification is a requirement of state officials who on Thursday gave the town permission to kill as many deer as it could lure to the three properties: the Pomerance-Montgomery Pinetum Park, Babcock Preserve and Griffith E. Harris Golf Course.
Greenwich, the first municipality in the state to receive permission to use sharpshooters to kill deer, must first inform neighbors whose properties abut the parcels and provide details about the program, including where and what times the sharpshooting will occur. The town also expects to update its Web site with more information about the program, officials said.
Last week, Howard Kilpatrick, a wildlife biologist with the state Department of Environmental Protection, revealed that he had made an error in coming up with 2001 estimates of Greenwich's deer population, inflating figures by as much as 43 percent.
Kilpatrick now estimates that at the time, data from an aerial survey showed there were up to 68 deer in a square mile of backcountry, not 120 as previously estimated.
Officials have said the ideal deer population would be 26 deer per square mile.
But even the corrected estimate is high compared with more recent data.
A few weeks ago Kilpatrick climbed aboard a helicopter for a second aerial survey and counted fewer deer than four years ago.
The helicopter in this year's survey flew over a slightly different area and covered fewer miles than the one in 2001, complicating the comparison between the data, he said.
Using a method that attempts to account for the differences in the paths taken by the two helicopters, Kilpatrick puts this year's deer population about 20 percent less than the population in 2001. That may mean efforts by hunters have put a dent in the deer population in the last four years.
But even those figures may understate the decline in the deer population. Comparing average deer densities between the two aerial surveys -- regardless of the flight paths taken -- shows a difference of up to 32 percent fewer deer this year. That places population estimates at about 46 deer in a square mile of backcountry.
Kilpatrick said that because of the variability in the deer population, none of the figures are precise.
"The thing to emphasize is they're estimates," he said.
Aerial surveys are a way of estimating deer population, but they make lack precision, given problems such as replicating a helicopter's path, said Willie J. Suchy, a wildlife biologist in Iowa who has done many such surveys in his state.
"It's not the easiest thing to accomplish," he said, adding that he endorses using average deer densities as the easiest way to compare two sets of data.
At the same time, interpreting aerial surveys require from three to five years worth of data, Suchy said, adding that without that much data, it's difficult to say there's a trend.
"It's tough to say with just two counts exactly what is going on," he said.
As town officials are busy making preparations for the sharpshooting, some town residents said they still back the program even in light of recent evidence showing fewer deer in Greenwich.
"Our property is overwhelmed with deer," said Mark Samuel, a District 8/Cos Cob Representative Town Meeting delegate who was among the majority that approved $47,000 for the program in December.
Almost every night that he walks his dog, he will see deer grazing in his front yard, which is about a block from Pomerance, Samuel said.
"Even with the changes with the numbers, the deer population is still much higher than what people would say could be supported by a square mile of land," he said.
State backs deer kill plan
By Hoa Nguyen Staff Writer February 11, 2005
Greenwich could start killing deer as early as next week, officials said yesterday.
State officials yesterday faxed a letter authorizing the town to be the first municipality in the state to kill as many deer as hired sharpshooters can lure to three town-owned properties between now and the end of March.
"We have a little more planning to do," First Selectman Jim Lash said. "We will know in another few days, or a week, much more precisely when we will go forward."
Before the killing can begin, the town must first notify next-door neighbors of the Pomerance-Montgomery Pinetum Park, Babcock Pre-serve and the Griffith E. Harris Golf Course, of its plans.
Officials also said they will be working on plans to keep the public away from those areas during the shooting.
"In addition to posting the parks as closed, we would also have police officers there to remind people that the parks are closed," Lash said.
Sharpshooters and police also will find the safest locations for the shots to be fired, such as areas that have a hill as a backdrop, said Conservation Director Denise Savageau.
Sharpshooters, who will use firearms with a sound suppressor, will sit on tree stands in the Babcock Preserve. At the other properties, they will stand on top of pickup trucks, Savageau said.
"It's more efficient," she said of the trucks. "It's easy to get in and out."
The scheduling of the shooting also will depend on Moodus-based White Buffalo Inc., which was hired to do the work.
The firm's owner, Anthony DeNicola, said yesterday that his crew just finished a job in Iowa and today are headed to Ohio for six weeks, where they estimate they will kill about 600 deer.
"We're in a position to split our field crew in two," he said, adding that he and up to two others will likely break from the Ohio assignment and head to Greenwich for a week or so.
Details still must be worked out from specific contract terms to field procedures, he said. DeNicola has said he expects to kill up to 70 deer from all three town properties.
Although officials had thought for months that parts of Greenwich were home to up to 120 deer per square mile, a state biologist earlier this week revealed that a calculation error had inflated estimates of Greenwich's deer population by up to 43 percent. The corrected figures show there are from 52.5 to 68 deer per square mile in parts of Greenwich.
That's still too many deer, officials said, citing the damage caused by deer eating too much of the forest vegetation, causing car accidents and playing host to the ticks that cause Lyme disease.
State admits error in deer counting
By Hoa Nguyen Staff Writer February 10, 2005
In only months, nearly half of Greenwich's estimated deer herd has been eliminated, all without a shot fired or an arrow flying.
"There was a miscalculation," said Howard Kilpatrick, a state Department of Environmental Protection biologist.
Last year Kilpatrick published a study estimating the town's deer population at up to 120 deer per square mile in the backcountry. But a calculation error that went undetected until a few days ago meant those estimates were inflated by as much as 43 percent, Kilpatrick said yesterday.
The corrected figures show that there are 68 deer in a square mile of backcountry and 52.5 deer in a square mile of midcountry north of the Post Road, he said.
In December, the Representative Town Meeting voted by a 3-2 margin to hire a sharpshooter to reduce the deer population. Since then, municipal officials have been seeking permission from the state Department of Environmental Protection to carry out the sharpshooting this month.
"This is quite a monkey wrench because we have different figures now," said Elizabeth Campbell, a District 5/Riverside RTM delegate.
"The vote may have been different," Campbell said, adding that as part of the presentation to convince RTM members, supporters cited the now discredited herd figures. "People say 'Yikes, that's a lot of deer per square mile.' "
But other municipal officials said the revised figures still show that deer overpopulation is a problem. State officials who are close to a decision on the sharpshooting also said the discrepancy won't affect their decision.
"It concerns me," Dale May, director of DEP's wildlife division, said of the calculation error. "But it really doesn't change things. It's not like all of a sudden, there's fewer deer than there were before."
Overabundant deer, which have few natural predators, invite swarms of Lyme-disease-carrying ticks, lead to an increase in traffic accidents, and wreak havoc on forest biodiversity by devouring ground cover and shrubs that other animals depend on, according to the Greenwich Conservation Commission. The commission last year recommended the town reduce its deer herd to fewer than 26 deer a square mile.
"The fact is the damage is out there," Conservation Director Denise Savageau said. "Now we know it doesn't take 120 deer per mile, it only takes 70 deer per mile."
Kilpatrick said he discovered the error a few days ago after he climbed aboard a helicopter, at the expense of the Greenwich Sportsmen and Landowners Association, for an aerial survey of the deer herd. The hunting group wanted estimates of the deer herd updated from what Kilpatrick published last year and based on data from a 2001 helicopter ride.
Researchers ride on a helicopter over sections of town and count the deer they see. Those counts are then plugged into a formula to estimate the overall herd for the town.
Kilpatrick said that in running the calculations from last week's helicopter count, he discovered that erroneous numbers were used into the formula to produce the 2001 calculations.
"Everyone's human," Kilpatrick said. "Everyone makes an error."
The Greenwich Sportsmen and Landowners Association has in the past opposed the hiring of the sharpshooter because its members said they could do as good a job of reducing the population through hunting. But yesterday, John Michelotti, the group's secretary, said he respected the town's decision to hire a sharpshooter and didn't think the RTM's decision would have been any different had the correct numbers been published initially.
"Maybe they're half of what they are but they're still two and a half times what they should be," Michelotti said.
Deer culling program may be delayed
By Hoa Nguyen Staff Writer December 19, 2004
Now that Greenwich has approved money to hire sharpshooters and kill deer as part of a cull planned for February, the town is in jeopardy of not receiving the required state permit in time.
"We knew it would be close," Conservation Director Denise Savageau said.
The Representative Town Meeting last week approved a controversial plan to spend $47,000 to buy supplies and hire Hamden-based White Buffalo Inc. to kill 200 or more deer at Griffith E. Harris Memorial Golf Course, Babcock Preserve and Pomerance-Montgomery Pinetum Park. The next step, which Savageau said will happen this week, is to apply for a permit from the state Department of Environmental Protection.
But with the upcoming holidays, state review of the permit application may have to wait until next month, officials said. That puts Greenwich at risk of not being able to start its sharpshooting program in the first week of February, which is the period town officials were targeting. Some state wildlife officials expressed doubts about meeting that date.
"I don't know if anybody can give you a definitive yes or no," said Michael Gregonis, a DEP wildlife biologist who is not familiar with Greenwich's plans but works with other municipalities on controlling the deer population.
"There's a lot of things it has to go through, a lot of hands it has to go through, a lot of review teams," he said. "It's probably unlikely to implement for the first week in February."
State officials said they want to take their time with this application because Greenwich would be the first municipality in Connecticut to seek to kill deer through means besides licensed hunting and trapping.
In the past, deer were killed by licensed hunters and trappers, who are limited by the state from killing too many at one time and hunting during certain daytime hours.
A state law passed in 2003 gives the DEP commissioner authority to permit Greenwich to bait and lure, at night, 200 or more deer to an area where sharpshooters, equipped with sound suppressers and night-vision goggles, will gun them down.
As part of the review process, Greenwich will be asked to put together a package of information, including statistics on its deer herd and the strategies the municipality explored to cull the deer population.
"Greenwich has enough -- they have more information than most towns," said Howard Kilpatrick, a DEP biologist. "They should be in good shape in terms of putting that thing together and providing the necessary documentation."
Ultimately, the decision rests with the state DEP commissioner, said Kilpatrick, who has previously worked with White Buffalo Inc. on other projects and has a close working relationship with Greenwich officials, having led a town-sponsored, two-year study on the town's deer herd in 2001.
The recommendations made in that study earned the endorsement of the Greenwich Conservation Commission, which advised town officials to immediately begin culling its deer population.
A few months ago, Savageau, the conservation director, met with other officials, including First Selectman Jim Lash and the heads of the parks and recreation and police departments. They agreed sharpshooting should be the town's first step toward culling the herd because it would kill many deer at one time and during a period when the town-owned properties can be closed, giving them more control over the cull, officials said.
"Safety, of course, is one of the most important issues," Lash said. "That's why the police department and the parks department have been involved."
But before officials could go ahead with the plan, they sought financial approval last month from the Board of Estimate and Taxation and then the RTM, which Lash said was his way of giving people a chance to speak their minds at a public hearing.
"We've been studying this for four years and we know we have a serious overpopulation of deer, we know we have a serious Lyme disease problem, we know we have a serious traffic problem related with deer," Lash said. "I very purposely brought this to the BET, RTM as a supplemental appropriation so that we can exactly have the debate that we have."
At last week's RTM meeting, approval of the sharpshooting program carried by a 3-2 margin, with 112 favorable votes.
In District 8/Cos Cob, approval was tight, with 13 in favor, 12 against and one abstention. But the measure passed solidly in areas such as backcountry, Riverside and Old Greenwich and was defeated in District1/Central, District 2/Harbor, District 3/Byram and District 12/Havemeyer.
Dean Goss, chairman of the District 1/Central delegation, said opinions on the subject differed, from those opposed to the idea of killing to people like him, who were skeptical that culling deer on three properties would thin the overall herd overpopulating other parts of town.
"I was just dubious about the way they were going about it," he said. "Even if you void an area, you can't expect to thin an adjacent area."
While the specifics of when, where and how the sharpshooting program will be carried out were not discussed at the RTM meeting, Goss said he had some concerns.
"I am afraid there might be enough people strongly opposed to it that they might try to interfere with it," he said. "I'm sure everybody who realizes what is going on is going to be concerned about it until they can actually see that it can be carried out without dire circumstances."
Town officials, such as Lash, said they are not planning on holding more public hearings, but will send word once the town has the permit and officials have set a schedule for the sharpshooting.
"Once we have the permit, (police and park officials) will take the action to keep people safe," he said.
Lash also said that if the town doesn't get the permit in time for February, officials can try again in 2006.
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/loc...8224.story
RTM approves deer killing
By Hoa Nguyen Staff Writer December 14, 2004
Greenwich officials voted last night to pay sharpshooters to cull deer in three town parks, moving the town one step closer to being the first in the state to do so.
During the two-hour Representative Town Meeting debate at Central Middle School, speakers favoring the move swapped motherly accounts of children troubled by pain and neurological problems brought on by deer-tick-borne Lyme disease with those opponents who had their depiction of sharpshooters luring deer in the middle of the night before stunning them with floodlights and then gunning them down.
"If we vote for this proposal tonight, I fully expect that it will be reported in the New York media that Greenwich has gone out and hired somebody else to do our dirty work," warned James Boutelle, a District 8/Cos Cob delegate to the RTM. "We can fully expect an ongoing blackeye from this."
The motion to approve the funds for the sharpshooting program carried with 61 percent of the 184 voting members present.
Last month the Conservation Commission asked for an increase of $47,000 to its consulting budget to pay a sharpshooter and the supplies required to cull deer on three town parks. The sharpshooting, planned for the first week in February, also requires a permit from the Department of Environmental Protection, which has not yet been issued but if approved, would make Greenwich the first municipality in Connecticut to thin its deer herd through baiting and sharpshooting.
Prior to the passage of a state law last year, the culling of deer were mostly limited to licensed hunting and trapping. The DEP now has the authority to permit municipalities to use methods not open to hunters and trappers, such as the use of a high-powered rifle equipped with sound suppressers and shooting past dusk.
Unlike hunting, which is only allowed from September through January, the proposed sharpshooting would be for the first week of February at the Griffith E. Harris Memorial Golf Course, Babcock Preserve and Pomerance-Montgomery Pinetum Park.
Overabundant deer, who have few natural predators, need to be managed because their large numbers invite swarms of Lyme-disease-carrying ticks, lead to an increase in traffic accidents, and wreak havoc on forest biodiversity by devouring ground cover and shrubs that other animals and plants depend on to live, the commission said.
Greenwich doesn't currently allow hunting on town property, and deer-management activities have been limited to private landowners opening their land to recreational hunters.
The proposal has attracted opponents, such as Karen Sadik-Khan, a District 6/Old Greenwich RTM delegate who objected to the plan of hiring sharpshooters who will do their work at night and use bait to lure deer.
"There's a certain amount of violence with luring deer," she said.
Bow hunters also came out against the plan, which they said was extravagant and ineffective because it seeks to cull deer on three town properties instead of over a larger area.
"This plan is destined to failure from the start," said Jeff Stempien, who also is a Greenwich police detective.
But the plan also received the support of several mothers whose children were stricken with Lyme Disease.
"It completely stole the life of my child," said Diane Blanchard, who besides contracting the disease herself looked on for six years while her three children battled the disease, including one who was bitten a second time and had a secondary infection.
Deb Siciliano brought her daughter Amanda to address the RTM about their fears of contracting the disease while playing soccer near the woods.
"Our town cannot have one more child robbed of their childhood because of this insidious disease," Siciliano said. http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/loc...0539.story
Town money for culling deer can be better spent December 13, 2004
To the editor:
At its meeting tonight, the Representative Town Meeting will consider approving the proposal to hire White Buffalo to reduce the deer herds in selected town parks. Because of our long-term involvement with this issue, the Greenwich Sportsmen and Landowners' Association feels the obligation to express its views. The organization respectfully disagrees with this proposal.
GSLA has been at the forefront of this issue for 12 years. In only three years we have achieved an increase of more than 300 percent in deer taken by bow-hunters in town. The driving force for the success of our program has been the GSLA's efforts to organize and manage local hunters; find volunteer businesses and petition the Department of Environmental Protection to set up check stations at those businesses; purchase and locate a walk-in cooler to make it convenient for hunters to take deer; find and negotiate with a butcher to process the deer; develop a relationship with the Fairfield County Food Bank and their client soup kitchens; coordinate with the state Hunter's for the Hungry Program;, and make and maintain relationships with many landowners.
Other Connecticut towns have emulated our program.
We are proud of our ongoing partnership with the National Audubon Society to reduce the deer herd in Audubon's flagship sanctuary in Greenwich. GSLA's detailed management reporting has been instrumental in helping Audubon achieve their program goals.
In addition to the above, the following hunting regulation changes have been made in recent years to address the overpopulation.
1. A lesser-weapons option allowing bow-hunters to hunt during the four-week gun and muzzleloader season.
2. Unlimited doe tags, allowing hunters to take unlimited number of does to focus on the most effective means of population reduction.
3. January hunting, which increases the hunting season by four weeks.
4. Baiting, which allows more effective hunting during December and January.
These initiatives are now beginning to work as intended to reduce the deer population. The dramatic increase in deer taken is testament to their effectiveness.
GSLA disagrees with the decision to hire White Buffalo for the following reasons:
* There is no townwide comprehensive plan to address the deer overpopulation. The parks in question represent less than 1 percent of the land in Greenwich. The killing of deer in these three town parks will have no effect in any other areas of town.
* If $47,000 is going to be spent on deer reduction, it can be spent more productively by using it to develop a townwide plan and instituting that plan throughout town. The per-deer cost of using White Buffalo is extravagant.
* By arbitrarily killing deer that come to the bait stations, including bucks, does, young and old, a healthy herd dynamic is likely to be severely damaged.
* We disagree with use of any firearms in Greenwich.
GSLA commends the selectmen and the conservation director on their efforts to address the deer population, and the group looks forward to continuing an excellent relationship with them. We do, however, respectfully disagree with this strategy and tactic without the benefit of a townwide comprehensive plan.
John Michelotti
Secretary, Greenwich Sportsmen and Landowners' Association
Brutality for deer December 10, 2004
To the editor:
I am deeply shocked that The Advocate supports the killing of deer by sharpshooters in municipal parks (editorial, Dec. 9). This is the most brutal measure to eliminate from our natural environment the most innocent inhabitants -- defenseless animals.
It is one thing for ignorant bureaucrats to propose such senseless killings, but for a responsible newspaper to support such a fallacy is, to put it mildly, irresponsible.
This in the season of love and joy where the symbolism of the reindeer doesn't seem to have penetrated The Advocate's sense of environmental priorities. Next the newspaper will suggest eliminating people because we have overpopulation in this world. Shame on you!
Harald Goering Darien
Sharpshooters also can be hazard December 9, 2004
To the editor:
I strongly agree with Craig Koproski's letter Nov. 28 about hiring sharpshooters to control the deer population. A person who fires a rifle at a target doesn't always hit the target, and one that ricochets can easily kill someone who is either standing nearby or walking in the woods.
Who will take responsibility in town when a person is injured or killed by a stray bullet?
Town officials should do some rethinking on this subject.
Richard Petrizzi Greenwich
With night-vision goggles and high-powered rifles, Greenwich stalks a new foe
December 15, 2004 Associated Press By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN
Associated Press Writer
Greenwich, a wealthy Connecticut town that cherishes its privacy and tranquility, is up in arms over a foe who is menacing its dear land.
The New York suburb plans to gun down this enemy in the middle of the night. Sharpshooters with silencers will lure the creatures out with bait at a golf course, a park and a preserve.
Greenwich is aiming to become the first municipality in Connecticut to thin its deer herd through sharpshooting and baiting.
A recent study found up to 120 deer per square mile in some parts of town, compared to a normal population of 10 to 15. The deer are particularly concentrated in the exclusive "backcountry" - known for its sprawling estates and such residents as Ron Howard and Mel Gibson.
But the deer hunting proposal, authorized by a new law, is angering animal rights activists who say the privileged should learn to coexist with the animals and not worry so much about their azalea bushes.
"They want a deer massacre," said Priscilla Feral, president of Friends of Animals in Darien. "We're in a very privileged part of the country. They don't want to be inconvenienced by deer."
But supporters include mothers of children with Lyme disease, blamed on ticks carried by deer.
"It completely stole the life of my child," said Diane Blanchard, who has the disease along with her three children, the Greenwich Time reported.
She spoke at a meeting Monday in which town officials voted to hire the help.
Greenwich officials deny the deer hunt is to protect fancy landscaping, but they are mindful of the town's image.
"If we vote for this proposal tonight, I fully expect that it will be reported in the New York media that Greenwich has gone out and hired somebody else to do our dirty work," warned James Boutelle, a town delegate.
The town, which must apply for a state permit, plans to kill up to 200 deer in February. The deer meat will be given to soup kitchens.
Deer culling is not new in suburbs overrun by deer, but it had been generally limited to private hunts. A state law passed last year allows towns to use new methods, including sharpshooting during the night with high-powered rifles, night-vision goggles and spotlights.
Sharpshooting of deer by cities and towns is on the rise around the country. Solon, Ohio, in October approved the largest city-backed deer killing in the state, and a proposal will be voted on next spring to allow hunters to shoot deer in Georgia's state parks.
Studies show a direct correlation between the number of deer and the rate of Lyme disease, said Denise Savageau, the town's conservation director.
The overabundance of deer also harms other animals by devouring plants and shrubs and causing a growing number of car accidents, officials said.
"We're losing certain song birds. We're losing wild flowers," Savageau said.
A survey found that 74 percent of residents support such a program, Savageau said.
"We thought it would be the safest and most effective way," Savageau said. "We have to look at not just an individual animal but all the animals and the whole ecosystem."
Bow hunters also oppose the plan, which they said was extravagant and ineffective because it culls deer on three town properties instead of a larger area.
Opponents say the deer will return to Greenwich.
"When you have nice estates in Greenwich and people use fancy shrubbery, they're going to draw deer," Feral said. "They would have to eradicate deer and put a fence around the town and they're not going to do that."
http://www.ctnow.com/news/local/statewir...4102.story
Doing what's necessary with deer
December 5, 2004 Editorial
Animal-rights activists and local hunters have spoken out against a plan by the town to hire sharpshooters to reduce the number of deer on three municipal properties. The fact that people who often are adversaries dislike the idea may give pause to officials considering whether to approve the proposal. To us, however, this initiative is worth trying, in part because it makes use of the only notable state response we've seen to the problem of deer overpopulation.
A state law passed last year by the General Assembly allows municipalities to seek a state permit to reduce the number of deer by using rifles equipped with sound suppressers and shooting past dusk. The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection does not allow use of such methods for hunters.
The plan developed by Greenwich's Conservation Commission would involve hiring White Buffalo Inc., a Hamden wildlife management company, to have sharpshooters kill deer at Griffith E. Harris Memorial Golf Course, Babcock Preserve and Pomerance-Montgomery Pinetum Park. The week-long deer-culling effort, which could occur as soon as February, would target an estimated 200 deer, which then would be butchered and the venison donated to homeless shelters. The projected cost of the program is $47,000.
If the Representative Town Meeting approves the plan, Greenwich would become the first municipality in the state to apply for a DEP permit for deer-culling. That is a powerful incentive for the town to make this effort a success.
A controlled hunt isn't the only way the Conservation Commission is trying to remedy the problem of deer overpopulation. The commission also wants to spend $8,000 to research the use of fertility controls on deer in Greenwich. But that kind of program could be years away.
The fact our town needs to take the initiative shows that the state, which regulates wildlife management through the DEP, hasn't addressed the problem that exists in much of Connecticut. Even urban areas of the state now are dealing with issues caused by having too many deer living among us. Increases in Lyme disease from ticks carried by deer, more car and truck accidents and the relentless foraging that destroys shrubs and other plants have been cited by the town Conservation Commission.
The commission also has documented how many deer exist in Greenwich's mid-country and backcountry: between 93 and 120 per square mile. Reducing that number to 26 deer per square mile is a long-term goal that has been cited as a motive for hiring sharpshooters.
Animal-rights activists, not surprisingly, oppose any type of hunting, saying the more deer that are killed, the more likely it is that the deer birth rate will rise. We're not convinced that's the case. Furthermore, we've heard no reasonable suggestion from these activists that would reduce the number of deer in any other way. With no real natural enemies -- wolves and mountain lions haven't existed in Connecticut for many decades -- and a plentiful food supply, including landscape shrubs at many houses, deer have the good life in our town.
Local hunters don't like the plan to hire sharpshooters because they say they can do the job more cheaply. Perhaps that is true, though hiring a firm to handle the project should satisfy liability concerns about the use of high-powered rifles on town property. In addition, Denise Savageau, the town conservation director, says limiting the time of the culling to a single week is more desirable than opening town lands to rifle hunting during the regular hunting season.
We've long opposed rifle hunting in Greenwich because of the potential dangers of errant bullets in a community as developed as ours. A closely monitored, well-controlled hunt to cull deer is far from ideal. But in the absence of other ways to reduce the deer herd in town -- and the lack of state efforts to deal with the problem -- we believe the proposal the RTM will consider Dec. 13 for a vote deserves to be approved.
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/opi...7633.story
Sharpshooting eyed for deer control
By Hoa Nguyen Staff Writer November 28, 2004
Under a plan awaiting town approval -- and with its share of critics -- Greenwich could become the first municipality in the state to thin its deer herd through sharpshooting.
The Representative Town Meeting is set to vote Dec. 13 on whether to spend $47,000 to hire White Buffalo Inc., a Hamden-based wildlife-management firm, to cull deer on three town properties. If approved, and if the state issues a permit, the shooting of deer at the Griffith E. Harris Memorial Golf Course, Babcock Preserve and Pomerance-Montgomery Pinetum Park could begin as early as February, Conservation Director Denise Savageau said. It would last for about a week.
"Doing a cull, what it does is reduce the herd and then we can look at long-term maintenance," she said.
Greenwich has from 93 to 120 deer per square mile in the midcountry and backcountry, according to a report the Conservation Commission released last month outlining recommendations for managing deer in town. It may take several years to cull the herd to an ideal of 26 deer per square mile, officials said.
In the report, the commission recommended immediately reducing the deer population through the use of sharpshooting and hunting, which already takes place on private property. Continued hunting and research into birth control also would be explored to further reduce the herd, the commission said.
Overabundant deer, who have few natural predators, need to be managed because their large numbers invite swarms of Lyme-disease-carrying ticks, lead to an increase in traffic accidents, and wreak havoc on forest biodiversity by devouring ground cover and shrubs that other animals and plants depend on to live, the commission said.
Currently Greenwich doesn't allow hunting on town property and deer-management activities have been limited to private landowners opening their land to recreational hunters.
Unlike recreational hunting, which is only allowed from September through January, the proposed sharpshooting would occur a week later and be part of a deer-culling program that requires a permit from the state Department of Environmental Protection.
Under a law passed last year, municipalities can seek permission to cull deer using techniques such as firing rifles equipped with sound supressors and shooting past dusk, which hunters and trappers aren't allowed to do, said Dale May, director of DEP's wildlife division.
Greenwich is the first municipality to express interest in applying for the permit and if it does submit a formal application, officials would have to outline their plan for culling the deer and alternatives they considered, May said.
"It would be the first one we've looked at," he said.
"We want to make sure we're thorough."
Although town officials are awaiting RTM approval before finalizing a sharpshooting contract, the proposed cull would likely occur over a week and involve sharpshooters using bait and high-powered rifles, Savageau said. The cull could kill an estimated 200 deer, although that number could change as the work progresses, she said.
The town also would turn to police and other authorities to address public-safety concerns, including closing down parks for the duration of the cull, she said.
But while conservation and some finance officials have given their blessing, animal-rights activists and local hunters are critical of the proposed sharpshooting cull, although for different reasons.
"I don't believe it should be done at all because it's not going to bring the population down," said Natalie Jarnstedt, an organizer for the Citizens for Prohibition of Hunting in Greenwich, who supports exploring non-lethal methods for culling deer. "I'd rather take this $47,000 and put all of that into birth control."
Apart from the sharpshooting program, conservation officials also propose spending $8,000, already appropriated, to research the use of fertility control on deer in town.
Although there are residents opposed to killing deer, about 75 percent of people surveyed in a study used as the basis for the conservation commission's recommendations said they supported lethal methods, such as hunting and sharpshooting, Savageau said.
Members of the Greenwich Sportsmen and Landowners Association, who are thinning the herd at the Audubon Greenwich Center through bowhunting and who have jockeyed for a role in the town's plan, also are critical of the proposal. They applaud the town's swift action toward culling deer but said it was too costly.
"We just think the method they chose to do it is questionable, especially from a financial point of view," said John Michelotti, secretary of the hunting group.
Some of the proposed $47,000 will go toward paying White Buffalo Inc., a nonprofit firm headed by Anthony DeNicola, who holds a doctorate in wildlife ecology, for consulting, sharpshooting and fertility research costs, Savageau said. The firm charges from $65 to $95 an hour, according to rough pricing estimates Savageau said she received.
The other part of the money will go to pay for supplies and other costs, such as to process the venison for donation to food shelters, she said.
The sharpshooting program is planned for after the bowhunting season so it doesn't interfere with hunting on private property, Savageau said.
Officials also wanted to cull the herd using a short and intense effort, which was the reason they chose sharpshooting, which could kill as many deer in one week as hunting does in several months, she said.
"We don't want to have to shut down town property during the hunting season," Savageau said.
But Michelotti said that for less money, hunters, who don't get paid and spend $50 on butchering costs for each deer, could get the same job done.
"More than anything else, it's a waste of $47,000," he said. "It's extravagant for what's being done."
So far this season Michelotti's 24-member group has killed a total of 90 deer and expects to exceed the 100 deer killed last season, he said.
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/loc...3296.story
Biologist: Targeting does over bucks more effective
By Hoa Nguyen Staff Writer May 8, 2004
One of the best ways to decrease the deer population in Greenwich is to encourage hunters to kill more does, according to a state biologist who this week presented his findings from a two-year study.
"Getting hunters to hunt the ones they're passing on would have the greatest impact on the population," said Howard Kilpatrick, a state wildlife biologist who has been studying the town's deer population with support from the state, the University of Connecticut and the Greenwich Conservation Commission.
He appeared before a Thursday night Conservation Commission meeting in Town Hall. The commission will consider the study results before issuing recommendations sometime in June, members said.
The deer population must be curbed because the animals cause many problems, Kilpatrick said. They have a large appetite that can wipe out certain plant species, affecting other animal populations and causing ecological instability, he said. They also harbor ticks that transmit Lyme disease, and the animals cause accidents when they wander onto the road, Kilpatrick said.
"Although the topic of whether hunters should be encouraged to kill deer has always been controversial, managing deer must be a priority, if not because of health and public safety concerns then because of the ecological harm they cause," Conservation Director Denise Savageau said.
"That brings a whole host of people onboard," she said. "The ecological thing tips the scale."
Deer in parts of Greenwich number about six times more than the 15 to 20 deer that can comfortably occupy a square mile before their sheer numbers start harming the ecology and plant diversity of an area, officials said. That means in the backcountry, there are about 120 deer living in every square mile and in midcountry, there are 80 deer in every square mile.
Every year, the population grows. Kilpatrick estimated that the number of does in Greenwich grows at about 4 percent annually. If hunting were banned, that growth would jump to 23 percent.
A way to effectively decrease the population would be to kill more does. Based on that, the state is considering initiating programs such as Earn-a-Buck, which would require hunters to kill a doe before they could hunt for a buck, Kilpatrick said.
As part of the study, he surveyed homeowners to discover their preferences for deer management.
Among those who favored traditional methods of killing deer, bowhunting was preferred over firearms.
"There certainly seems to be a tendency to avoid firearms," Kilpatrick said.
But while many people supported hunting, most wanted to use nonlethal methods, such as birth control -- but few knew what that would entail, he said.
"This was their preferred option but they had no idea what the cost was and whether it would work," Kilpatrick said, adding that the cost has been pegged in one study at $564 per year per animal.
Last year, when the Audubon Greenwich Center allowed hunting at its Riversville Road property, 37 deer were killed between November and January, executive director Tom Baptist said.
The decision to allow hunting was made because the sanctuary saw an increase in ecological damage caused by the deer, he said yesterday.
"If you came out there today, I could show you parts of the forest where nothing's alive," Baptist said. "It's pretty dramatic in parts."
[signature]