Let Common Sense Prevail

To the Editor:

I was surprised to read in last week’s Bee that people are still writing letters in favor of a deer cull. It seems clear after the many letters written and the strong opposition voiced at several town meetings, that many people are adamantly opposed to it. To save space, I won’t recount all of the statistics and studies previously cited, but I would like to recap the concerns that have been expressed.

A deer cull will not reduce the occurrence of Lyme disease. We know that there are 47 different hosts for the ticks. Eliminating deer will not eliminate ticks, they will simply find other hosts.

Please educate yourself on the issues. There are alternatives to the massive elimination of deer. There are systems that apply Acaracides on deer (four poster system) as well as on mice (Max Force system). Acaracides kill ticks.

It’s the ticks that must be targeted to combat the spread of Lyme. Lyme disease is a terrible, debilitating disease. We should fight it with scientifically proven, safe, and sensible methods. I would argue that bite prevention, sensible tick control, tick checks, improved testing and treatment options would be more fruitful than a deer cull which carries significant risk and will not stop Lyme disease. Any method the town implements to try and fight Lyme disease must be viewed from a risk versus benefit perspective. In my opinion, the risks involved are simply too high.

Whether the cull is conducted with rifles or bow and arrow, the risk of injury is one that the town can’t afford to take. It’s irrelevant if Connecticut has a low incidence of hunting accidents. Even one accident is too many. Hunting accidents occur frequently throughout the country, often with tragic consequences. Does anyone remember the toddler that was killed by a hunter’s stray bullet in her home last winter, in front of her grandparents? That’s one family’s heartbreak that will never go away. Is our town willing to take on this type of potential liability? The net and bolt method has been cited as less risky to kill deer, but it’s too horrific to include its description here.

Then there is the issue of cost. Even if the town gets a discounted rate, we still have to pay for it. What other hidden costs are involved that we don’t know about? Will the town’s insurance policy even cover this? In these tough economic times, where salaries are being frozen and jobs cut, is this where we should be spending our scarce resources?

Even if we eliminated all the deer in Newtown, we’d still have Lyme disease.

It only takes one tick bite to transmit Lyme disease. Our efforts should focus on education and tick bite prevention.

Jodi Bialik

Briarwood Lane, Newtown                                          August 26, 2009