Nicolas Niarchos, a contributing writer for the Yale Daily News, has an article today on efforts by some to convince the state to extend the deer hunting season in Connecticut in order to contribute to a reduction of the total number of deer, particularly in the southern part of the state. This reduction is being urged as a means of reducing or eliminating Lyme disease.
Dr. Georgina Scholl, chair of the Fairfield County Municipal Deer Management Alliance, has been an outspoken advocate for reducing deer numbers in order to virtually eliminate the threat of Lyme disease to humans. She believes that deer herd numbers are directly proportional to the incidences of Lyme disease.
In a recent article, Dr. Scholl says that in 1896 Connecticut had 12 deer and no ticks. Now, the state estimates over 150,000 deer, an increase in tick infestation and incidents of Lyme disease on the rise. Her theory is simple really – reduce the number of deer and you reduce the number of ticks carrying Lyme.
But not everyone sees it that way. Some believe the only way to deal with the ticks is to deal with the ticks not the animals that carry them.
“I think that only elimination or near elimination (of ticks) will have an effect on the population of ticks, something not likely to happen, and certainly not by increasing the hunting season,†Epidemiology and Public Health professor Eugene Shapiro said in an e-mail.
So, the question becomes, what is being done about the problem. If there are instances, like in Maine and in Connecticut where communities have successfully reduced deer numbers drastically and that reduction has resulted in near elimination of the spread of the disease, isn’t this a viable option?
If it is proven effective to use chemicals and insecticides to combat the ticks, then why isn’t it being used or used more readily? Or better yet, perhaps a combination. I don’t have the answers but how long should we debate the issue before something gets done?
*A clarification of Niarchos’ article* I was contacted by Nicolas Niarchos by email and asked if I was interested in making a brief comment about Dr. Scholl’s proposal, etc. Because of time constraints, I sent Niarchos some comments rather than try to connect via telephone. Perhaps this was not such a good idea.
In Niarchos’ article this is what he chose to use from my comments. (I am not accusing Mr. Niarhcos of taking my comments out of context. I sooner believe because of the lack of better communication, he didn’t fully understand my position.)
While some hunting enthusiasts interviewed said they are excited about Scholl’s proposed hunting season, they said they are not entirely convinced that it would work in practice.
Thomas Remington, co-author of ‘The Legend of Grey Ghost and Other Tales from the Maine Woods’ and various New England hunting blogs, said Scholl is overestimating the impact hunting will have on the overwhelming deer population in Connecticut.
“That’s the reduction of herd size to eight deer per square mile,†Remington said.
I’m not sure that is a good representation of the point I was trying to make nor is it exactly clear. In one part of my statement, I referred to Dr. Scholl making a broad statement that reducing the deer population down to around 8 per square mile would be enough to eliminate the threat of Lyme disease. As a matter of fact, this is exactly what she said.
It is well-known that deer numbers in Connecticut must be reduced to less than 12 per square mile to save the woodlands. So will people choose to go one step further and reduce deer numbers to eight per square mile?
Scholl had made references to other communities where they had had success by drastically reducing numbers. She cites one case where deer density ran around 100 per square mile and they got it down to around 10. My comment to Niarchos was that without having all the information at hand for each community, etc., it is difficult to broadly say let’s reduce the deer density to 8 per square mile. This is exactly what I wrote.
The only problem I have with Dr. Scholl’s suggestions and one which I cannot properly address because I don’t have all the information, and that’s the reduction of herd size to 8 deer per square mile. As we know, there are many factors involved in determining the healthy carrying capacity of a piece of land for deer or any other wildlife species. With that I’ll leave it alone. I would have to rely on science what herd size would be needed to eliminate Lyme disease, which is her goal.
For clarification purposes, I believe in the science of carrying capacity and how it relates to deer density. In short, a piece of land can only healthily handle a certain number of deer. It is almost never a set figure because there are too many factors. Some areas can quite easily handle as many as 50 or more deer per square mile while others run into problems with 5 or 6 per square mile. I also believe that Dr. Scholl knows and understands this science as well.
I don’t believe I was attempting to say that Dr. Scholl is overestimating the impact herd reduction by hunting would have. My point was that I would have to defer to science in determining at what density the deer population for any given community and/or region would have to be in order for it to be healthy when considering all aspects of it. What might work in Ridgefield may not work in Bethel.
Tom Remington
Related Posts
- Connecticut Activists Still Pushing For Deer Population Reductions To Ease Lyme Disease
- Connecticut's Lyme Disease Problem Needs Hunters And Landowners Help
- A Strategy To Eliminate Lyme Disease
- Lyme Disease Over Thirty Years Old. Do We Continue To Do Nothing?
- Ridgefield, Connecticut to Vote on Deer Hunting Tonight
