PART 2: HISTORY OF THE PROPOSED DEER SLAUGHTER IN LEISURE WORLD OF MARYLAND: Prepared with the assistance of D.J. Schubert - Wildlife Biologist - Animal Welfare Institute-Washington, DC wildlifeadvocacy.org/who.php This was read into the record at the 4/30/13 Leisure World of Maryland - Meeting of the Board of Directors: Comments on Leisure World proposed deer cull: 1. I only became aware of the proposed resolution from the deer committee within the past 48 hours. 2. I was not aware of any previous meetings of the deer committee. Though the members of the deer committee are listed under a link on the Leisure World website, there is no specific link to the deer committee. Consequently, minutes from the deer committee meetings do not appear to be available for review by residents or other interested citizens. If notices providing the date and time of the committee’s meeting were published, I don’t know where, I never saw them, and, therefore, I was prevented from attending the committee meetings to listen to the discussion and provide my input to the committee. Furthermore, it is not clear to me if the operations of the deer committee were in accordance with the Leisure World by-laws. 3. I have reviewed the relevant information compiled by the deer committee contained in the April 30 Leisure World Board agenda packet and I oppose the proposed resolution for a number of reasons including: a. There is no evidence that the deer committee ever attempted to meet with any organization or entity that would have provided an alternative to deer culling for the committee’s consideration. It only met with those entities – state, county, and private – that actively conduct and/or promote deer culling. While the deer committee apparently considered or discussed sterilization as a management tool and other non-lethal management alternatives (fencing, netting, landscape plantings) it appears that such information was obtained from the pro-deer cull entities that the committee met with and/or from whatever independent research committee member conducted. I would note that the Humane Society of the United States is headquartered in Gaithersburg, MD and the Animal Welfare Institute is located in Washington, DC. Both organization employ wildlife biologists who have worked on deer management issues for decades and the deer committee should have sought guidance from these organizations in other in their efforts to fully understand deer biology, ecology, impacts, and management. b. The information suggests that non-lethal tools have been used in the community but have not been effective. As a resident, it is not at all clear to me whether my neighbors have been properly educated about the numerous non-lethal tools available and taught how to use them so I am concerned that the claims made by the deer committee in this case may be an overstatement. c. The deer population study undertaken in Leisure World was conducted by Patriot Land and Wildlife Management. This is the very same company that the deer committee is now proposing to hire to kill deer in our community. This raises concerns regarding a conflict of interest as Patriot Land and Wildlife Management is a for-hire firm that conducts lethal deer culls. d. The study itself is flawed. For example, it references Mississippi State University as providing the protocol for the use of infrared camera traps to census deer population but fails to cite to the relevant information from the University prevent access and review of the underlying studies. Selected, based on information contained in the Patriot report, it selected locations the deer were more likely to inhabit within Leisure World and then baited those sites to ensure that deer would be attracted to the areas and that their images would be captured by the cameras. This likely introduced a significant bias into the results obtained which probably overestimated the number of deer in Leisure World. Furthermore, despite using bait to attract deer, Patriot still used a correction factor to compensate for deer that may not have been seen. This likely further biased the results of the deer population survey. e. There is information missing from the Board agenda packet. On page 3 of the Deer Control Special Committee Recommended Plan (or page 81 of 98 in the board agenda packet) of the existing packet it says that there would be a series of articles about deer related issues, including Lyme disease, included with the packet but those articles are not there. This prevents me or anyone else from reviewing this information to determine its accuracy. f. I would note, for example, that while there is a perception that Lyme disease incidence is correlated with deer density, there is a growing body of scientific evidence that there is no such correlation and that, in fact, Lyme disease incidence is more closely linked to the abundance of smaller mammals – particularly rodents – in urban and suburban landscapes. Should the board delay action on this proposed resolution, I would be happy to provide the board and the deer committee with a number of relevant studies on this issue for their consideration. g. The proposed use of archery to kill deer is the most inhumane method available for this purpose. There are several studies documenting a 50 percent wounding and loss rate for archery suggesting that for every deer struck and killed through the use of archery another is only wounded. While I don’t know the track record of Patriot Land and Wildlife Management in regard to its wounding loss rate when it employs archery, if killing is done using this method the board and residents should be prepared for the possibility of observing gravely wounded deer in our community. 4. As a resident of this fine community, I would strongly encourage the board to either reject this proposal in favor of an education based effort to ensure the more widespread use of non-lethal management alternatives to address deer management concerns, direct the deer committee to resume its work and to specifically reconsider non-lethal management options including by requesting presentation on such options by animal protection organizations, or, at a minimum, defer any further discussion of this issue until its May or June board meetings to provide the residents of Leisure World an adequate opportunity to carefully consider the deer committee’s recommendation and to access other information including the Leisure World bylaws, deer committee meeting minutes, and published studies to ensure that the Board ultimately makes the most informed decision possible. 5. Now that I am aware of this issue, I am prepared to work with the Board and the deer committee on this matter. I have already been in touch with biologists with the Humane Society of the United States and the Animal Welfare Institute and both entities have expressed an interest in helping me and the Leisure World community with this issue. Thank you.
Posted on: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 03:50:46 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015