Expectations For A Task Force To Combat Tick-Borne Disease

By Kendra Bobowick

It has been called a few things, but none of the names seem right.

Newtown Deer Ad Hoc Committee? What about the words “management” or “action?”

Conservation Commission member Marjorie Cramer, for one, complained Monday to selectmen that certain names imply that deer need to be managed. No one has drawn that conclusion — yet. As the town weighs a proposal for what has also been called the Tick-Borne Disease and Action Task Force, the mention of thinning deer herds — often associated with attempts to reduce counts of Lyme disease — has triggered tempers.

Arguments that managing the deer population is the answer to reducing Lyme, that deer are not to blame, or even that their herds need reduction for other environmental reasons are being raised at town meetings, during private conversations, and even in letters to The Newtown Bee. (See related story.) No task force has yet been established, but first Selectman Joe Borst has a folder full of names for one. Since the Lyme Disease Task Force approached the town for help in October, Mr Borst had asked Land Use Deputy Director Rob Sibley and Health District Director Donna Culbert to draft a mission statement for what they termed the Deer Ad Hoc Committee — not an official title — including recommendations for committee members. No task force is yet assembled and whatever the name turns out to be, he wishes for something “noncontroversial,” he said Tuesday.

At a Board of Selectmen’s meeting Monday equipped with his folder and mission statement, Mr Borst turned to his fellow board members and began what at times would be a heated conversation.

“I am asking David Shugarts to be acting chair,” Mr Borst began, “until the group elects its own officers.” Who is he? The answer comes from an October appeal by Lyme disease Task Force member Maggie Shaw, who had asked the town to create a plan to counter what she described as a threat to public health, referring to Lyme and other tick-borne diseases. Mr Shugarts — also a Lyme disease task force member — had recommended a culling program as the answer to tackling Lyme, and had also said in past months that other area towns, including Ridgefield, have done extensive research. The time for studying has passed he told selectmen in October. He insisted on action.

The mission statement is a first step, stating: “The draft reflects … a response to concerns voiced by residents. The committee shall be comprised of eight members with a balanced view of health, safety, and environmental impacts.” The letter goes on to name Kirk Blanchard, Dr Marjorie Cramer, Mary Wilson, and Dr Peter Licht to serve on what selectmen referred to as the Tick-Borne Disease and Action Task Force — also not an official name.

Hoping to prove that a variety of interests were already represented by those volunteering for the soon-to-be task force, Mr Borst said Monday, “[Mr Shugarts] and Dr Cramer are two sides,” to approaches the committee is expected to discuss. Selectman Paul Mangiafico would later object: “Mrs Cramer is referred to as the other side? This isn’t a hunting versus nonhunting issue. You can’t think that way.”

Hitting his main point, Mr Mangiafico insisted, “There are no ‘sides,’ there is only one side — of rationality, science, and what’s reasonable.” With every intention of reviewing names of residents expressing interest in serving on the task force, Mr Mangiafico described what he was looking for: “A good, rational person who I feel can make good decisions regardless of particular leanings.”

They hope to have names of prospective appointees by their next meeting.

 

The Expectations

“This is emotional,” Mr Mangiafico pointed out. “There is almost an irrational feeling that people have,” he said. That is not an element he wants on the task force. “We want objective people to listen to facts and come up with a rational and logical conclusion.”

Selectman Herb Rosenthal said, “I’m sure people on this committee will have opinions going in, but be open minded enough to have different perspectives. I hope the appointed members work for the good of the town.” The task force needs to look at the problems itself before recommending an action, he feels, and action “doesn’t necessarily mean culling.”

Addressing a full house gathered at the selectmen’s meeting Monday, he offered a collage of thoughts: “I know there are a lot of concerned people; I don’t like hunting; the selectmen and I have to worry about the health and safety of all of Newtown.

“I don’t want anyone to think that because we think this disease is a problem and want to protect people…” pausing to consider his words, Mr Rosenthal was blunt. “It doesn’t mean we’re biased toward killing animals, but we want the problem studied. We are not just waiting to take arrows out to start killing deer.”

In Ridgefield

A former federal prosecutor and Ridgefield resident who headed that town’s Deer Management Committee, which ultimately adopted a culling program, Tom Belote has been precisely where Newtown is now and knows the daunting task ahead.

Like Newtown’s emerging task force, Mr Belote’s group sought answers. Was there a deer problem? What will remedy the problem?

Two approaches faced Ridgefield. “Towns can do their own research or can take the studies from [Ridgefield], Wilton, Greenwich…we did detailed studies that other towns have used in lieu of their own,” he said. Already Newtown officials are voicing desires to conduct their own studies.

Task force members are going to need a thick skin, he said more than once. “This is not the place for the shy or retiring.” Considering the program they began to study in 2004, which took nearly a year to play out and led to controlled culling, he added: “The nastiness was incredible, and the amount of bad behavior.” Regardless, their search led them to a conclusion that deer herds needed reduction. In the second year of the culling program, he does not have any reported results.

The road was fraught with opposition. “We had a small vocal group of [several] people who personally attacked committee members directly in letters, during public comment,” he said. “And there are a lot of outside people trying to block [deer culling].”

He recommends an “open-minded” committee that will “listen to points of view” and essentially do all the homework necessary to form a conclusion. During the study group’s eight-month process, he remembered, “Ridgefield is no wilting flower regarding controversy. We have a vocal population.”

His point?

“That’s why it’s important to have a committee able to look at this professionally and make a clear decision.” His group found several problems, then weighed what might be done. “We looked at alternatives,” he assured.

His study committee — 19 people — included hunters, an executive editor, the Chamber of Commerce president, two police department members, landscapers, and a retired medical administrator. He described them as “a number of college educated people” grappling with the questions. “You couldn’t have a more representative group than we had.” The number of people was daunting, but surprised him in the end.

“You don’t normally appoint 19 people then ask them to reach a consensus, it could be impossible,. But 18 out of 19 voted in favor without hesitation.

Residents there “overwhelmingly” voted to support the culling program.