Forests Vs Ticks?

By Kendra Bobowick

Speaking with the Tick-Borne Disease Action Committee Wednesday, Pat Boily said, “Something that struck me” was an implication to reduce deer to 20 per square mile or lower for forest regeneration.

Member David Delia answered, “Actually, down to five, then leave the land alone.” Deer counts should then “max out” at 15 to 20, he said, as the committee commented on discussions with foresters and researchers in past weeks. Referring to Newtown’s forests, Mr Boily said, “There is not enough light. There is a canopy and no light, so you harvest the trees and reduce the deer for more regeneration.”

The group last week took a field trip to various open spaces in town, noting the forest’s condition in different town- and state-owned locations. Areas of state land where forest management and tree harvesting is underway revealed a lot of growth compared to an adjacent town property that offered a stark difference. Much less growth occurred where trees had not been harvested to let sunlight through to the forest floor, they mentioned.

“It shows we need to selectively harvest trees,” said Mary Gaudet-Wilson. She walked away from the recent conversation with another impression: “The key, I think, is that if you reduce deer you won’t have a healthier forest. Intuitively you would think, yes, but probably not.” Noting a thought that had left its impression, she said, “The more regeneration, the more growth and more to eat, and you have healthier deer.”

Countering her point, Neil Chaudhary said, “But, our deer are already healthy and getting enough food as it is.” Kirk Blanchard added, “I asked if the deer population was cut in half, would it also reduce the browse by half. The answer I got — remaining deer are a bit healthier and stronger.”

Maggie Shaw stressed, “I think deer numbers are high, that’s a concern to residents and our forests — that should be a top concern. That’s a big message.”

The group then talked about the forests in Connecticut in the last 100 years, the definition of what they felt a healthy forest should be, deer population growth, invasive species, long-ago agricultural practices, and people’s impact on the forests.

Resident David Shugarts spoke: “I’m glad you brought up history. One hundred years ago there were no deer in Connecticut.” The group then spoke of the forest’s understory, deer browse, and again spoke of invasives. Mr Shugarts warned, “You can guarantee there won’t be forests in 50 to 100 years.”

Ms Shaw asked, “Do you want safer forests for residents to walk through?”

Ms Gaudet-Wilson said, “Ticks are in the edge habitat, and that goes deeper [into the forest] than I thought.” The forest’s interior is a safer place to be, she said. Residents are more apt to get ticks in a thinner corridor of forest, and “our forests have been cut up,” she warned. Development created less forest density, and more tick-friendly habitat.

They talked about education. “What do we have out there? We don’t have anything out there on education channels.” Could the group promote an educational televised message? Kim Harrison said, “Any way you can help educate the children. It’s got to come from multimedia message.”

They watched one video that was both instructional and at times frank about the extent of illness and the neurological and physical debilitation it can produce long-term.

“I would urge us to adopt an educational program that is preventative in nature. We should educate people about how to prevent the disease,” said Peter Licht. Noting some testimony on video about severe ailments, Dr Licht had added, “There are people who would be too frightened to leave the house, that’s counterproductive.”

Ms Shaw interjected, “But there are people who are homebound. We have to respect what the disease can do …”

“We are all here, spending an awful lot of our time devoted to this disease,” Dr Licht began.

“People are saying they’re sick, out of school; where is the balance of not making people scared and ruining quality of life?” said Ms Shaw.

Members next week will continue their work toward a final report of their collective research, science, and eventual final report and recommendations they will submit to the Board of Selectmen.