Tick Disease Panel Finds It Is Talking Mostly About Deer

By Kendra Bobowick

Newtown’s Tick-Borne Disease Action Committee has been meeting weekly trying to plot a course for the town in combating the threat of tick-related illnesses. The time for reaching conclusions is approaching, and the panel appears to be heading for a split decision.

Robert Grossman, MD, heads the panel, and he suggested that when the time arrives for deliberations, the 12-person committee could split into small groups for discussion, “and either come to an agreement or disagreement on an issue,” he said. Among topics of consideration are deer population density, controlled hunting, educating the public, taking measures to reduce landscape elements preferable to ticks, using methods to administer pesticides to deer, spraying for ticks, and other disease-, tick-, and deer-related studies.

Visiting the group last week was Deputy Director of Land Use Rob Sibley. Setting down his coffee and addressing the members gathered in the library he said, “I’m here to answer any questions you might have.”

Dr Grossman had hoped for discussions about Lyme disease asking, “What do you know” about deer or mice or other carriers in the tick’s life cycle.

“My expertise is the care and well-being of open space in the town, not deer management,” Mr Sibley replied.

Redirecting the conversation toward town land, the panel’s vice chair, Dr Michele McLeod said, “There is a lot of open space that’s been given or willed to the town with conditions — no hunting, or other restrictions.” She noted informal comments regarding the possibility of “getting around” stipulations. She also noted that if the town accepts property with conditions, that “should be respected, or others will be hesitant to give.”

Stepping smoothly into the topic, Mr Sibley explained that the town acquires open space and land in many manners. He named easements, portions of subdivisions that must be set aside, or land that is purchased. The town has hundreds of open space parcels, and all carry legal descriptions and conditions, he said.

“If someone says no camping overnight, no one can change that; it’s always going to be there,” he said.

Members asked Mr Sibley an array of questions reflecting recurring themes in the panel’s conversations having to do with deer population and natural habitat issues. Kim Harrison asked, “Have you had a chance to be in the open space and assess the deer damage? We keep hearing reports that it’s a concern — overbrowsing.” She said, “We’re losing growth and interfering with nesting birds, losing native insects and plants.”

The land use official replied with a quick history lesson: “Our parcels have gone through the agricultural process in the last couple of hundred years. They were either farmed or kept cattle, so it’s at least the second or third generation growth since the land was colonized.” He did not agree or deny that deer were the sole problem. He said that invasive species of plants out-compete native growth, and overbrowsing could be because of subdivisions, which diminish the deer habitat.

He noted pressures to the environment, “including us.” He said, “The largest impact is our own population, we have ourselves to blame. Much of our landscape trends, plants, materials, and spacious lawns create wasteland for the natural habitat.” He wishes that the natural environment “would crawl up to everybody’s home,” without the lawn and decorative shrubs and mulch to skew the natural balance.

David Delia asked if the deer were “changing the forest … create runoff, eat everything down.”

Mr Sibley replied, “What causes runoff and compaction of soil will change the filtration, so a treaded path — water will follow it.” The forest is like “walking on a sponge,” with good filtration where water soaks in rather than running off. Lawns or yards, for example are compacted, which “changes where the water goes, so there is erosion.” Answering Mr Delia’s question he said, “So, I can see that as a possibility.”

What about the deer count? With approximations as high as 70 deer per square mile in town, Dr McLeod asked, “If we want to reduce disease, we’ve got to get the number to 10 or 12…”

Mr Delia said incremental decreases help. Across from him, Dr McLeod shook her head.

Mr Sibley tried to address the numbers he thought would be attainable through deer hunting in Newtown.

The answer would have to be studied “parcel by parcel” to determine what restrictions there might be on the land. He also surmised that the group would need to find a parcel large enough and without restriction to have an impact. Some open space areas might be “in the middle of a subdivision and favored by all deer in the neighborhood, and you may have 40 acres with the same number of deer where they are harder to find.”

He said, “I am not sure what open space we have that would impact [the deer population].” There also may be parcels that are “exactly what you are looking for.”

Access to land would be key if the committee chooses hunting, Mr Delia said.

Families with children and dogs may not want hunting near or on their property, Dr McLeod said. Ms Harrison answered, “If hunting was safe I think a lot of families would want the hunting.”

Why not look to neighboring towns’ conclusions to institute a deer cull or other measures to diminish the spread of tick-borne illnesses? Dr McLeod said, “I think it’s not about following just because everybody else is doing it. Hopefully we come up with options for reducing disease.”

“Other towns are coming to the same conclusions,” Ms Harrison argued.

Dr Grossman spoke, “We may come to the same conclusions — a lot of people have given permission for hunting. I have seen a lot of tree stands where they bait below and shoot straight down.”

Should they poll the town for feelings toward hunting and who would allow it, who would not? Would a deer cull be a likely outcome? The group grappled with the questions.

Frustrations rose. Ms Harrison came to the meeting with a sheaf of reports generated by other towns: “They’re having the same speakers, the same information, so the same conclusions. Deer are a huge component. Prevention, protection, education, and now deer. These other reports for other towns are critical. Do you really think you’ll come up with different conclusions?”

Dr McLeod said, “It’s easier to march down the same path, but everyone has talked about 10–12 deer per square mile and no towns with a cull are making great strides in that direction. We want to think of something that makes a difference here.”

Regarding one report she read, Ms Delia said, “One town has gotten numbers down and it has taken seven to eight years — the hurdle is access.”

“Access is a problem,” said Dr McLeod.

“You can be pessimistic if you want …” Mr Delia said.

“I think the question is what is achievable, what is reasonable,” Dr Peter Licht interjected.

If the group chooses to recommend to the town to reduce the deer population, Dr Grossman stressed, “The report should come with a full explanation of why.” He also expressed that explanations about safeguards also make their final report.

Hunting on private property will be a personal decision, Ms Harrison said.

Dr Grossman has received letters from the public “from people who are not interested in deer hunting.” Mr Delia said, “Ultimately it does have to come from people to allow hunting.”