End the February deer hunt

The following is an abbreviated version of the letter originally sent to Wayne MacCallum, Director of the Division of Fisheries & Wildlife Field Headquarters.

Dear Mr. MacCallum:

I am writing this letter to add my voice to my fellow Nantucketers who are opposed to continuing the February special season deer hunt.

In spite of the 246 deer harvested, in its aftermath Nantucketers have been asking, “At what expense?” Research that many of us have conducted to understand the basis for the hunt has led to several very troubling questions about the scientific basis for the hunt, the accuracy of the data upon which these proposals and decisions relied and, the motivation behind it.

My experience with the hunt was not unusual. I live in a densely populated community of the hunt, I heard several small explosions. I realized they were gunshots very nearby. Simultaneously, a neighbor called to report that she had been walking her dogs nearby and had heard shots at a much closer range. Stories of lost hunters behaving in so many inappropriate ways as to be too numerous to repeat here started swirling.

News travels very quickly on Nantucket; bad news travels at lighting speed.

On Nov. 9, a public hearing was held by the Nantucket Board of Selectmen, to hear a proposal to continue the hunt on a smaller scale. Only three people in an overflowing court room spoke in favor of the proposal. It was voted down decisively.

As it had pledged, the Fish and Wildlife Board held a hearing on Nov. 21, 2005; of all the speakers, many of whom were hunters and life long residents of Nantucket, only four favored the hunt.

Concern about the special hunt escalated to involve an entire community concerned about its welfare going well beyond the issue of Lyme disease. Many questions have been asked about why and how this had happened to Nantucket. Here are a few.

Why were 958 special permits sold? 958 hunters represent at least 10 percent of the year round population. Since February is a time of year when many islanders are away, the proportion of hunters to islanders was most certainly much higher than 10 percent. This is a small island. Why would state officials consider providing unlimited and uncontrolled hunting in such a small place?

Why were other alternatives to the special hunt not seriously considered? It appears that a little known group called the Tick Advisory Group precipitated this hunt. The justification for the hunt was a high incidence of tick related disease.

Alternatives to a special hunt were noted by the group and eliminated as follows: Sharp shooting is “too pricey;” contraception as too difficult to carry out; the four poster bait station produces unintended effects, such as pesticide-tainted deer meat. Martha’s Vineyard and Cape Cod are presently testing these techniques; why shouldn’t Nantucket? Regarding sharp shooting, no one appears to have asked the question “Too pricey compared to what?”

This year in Wachtung, NJ, sharp shooters were hired and killed 144 deer at a cost to the town of $220 each deer. Our conservation properties are ideally suited to controlled hunts. Why was this not considered as an alternative to 900 hunters roaming the island?

Are all the statistics about tick and deer populations plausible? It is clear that we have absolutely no idea how many deer are on Nantucket. No census has ever been taken; none, apparently, was ever considered necessary. As a result, our estimates are based on computer models. Several reports will serve to justify skepticism. In a Nov. 24, 2004, article, Deputy DFW Director Deblinger estimated there were between 1600 and 2400 deer on Nantucket. Then, one year later, in a Nov. 20, 2005, article, after 823 deer were killed in 2004/2005, he estimated Nantucket has between 2,500 and 3,000 deer.

Further, Deblinger was quoted as saying that if 100 additional deer were taken annually in a special season, computer models show that the herd could be reduced to 30 per square mile in seven years.

If the reason for the hunt is to reduce the risk of Lyme disease, and existing research indicates that a reduction to four to 10 deer per square mile is needed to materially reduce the tick population, why are we pursuing a seven year plan to reduce the herd to 30 deer per square mile?

In conclusion, the message from hundreds of Nantucketers who have written letters to your Division and the Nantucket Board of Selectmen, signed petitions, and attended meetings and hearings is this: any positive outcome from a special hunt, whatever the largely unknown and unquantifiable impact may be, is dwarfed by the disregard shown Nantucket’s people, our homes, properties, and our island by an overwhelming number of careless and unruly hunters unfamiliar with the terrain and culture of our community.

The people of Nantucket certainly want to control the spread of Lyme disease on this island, but we are opposed to addressing the problem by turning Nantucket into a winter playground for hunters. There are effective alternatives to that approach better suited to Nantucket.

Given our experience and this debate, this should include better science and better publicity, as opposed to a marketing program for the special hunt.

A constructive pro-active approach that brings the community together around a comprehensive, rational strategy which addresses deer herd management as well as Lyme disease prevention is far better than continuing or enlarging the divisiveness that has occurred in this community because of the special hunt.

Fish and Wildlife Deputy Director Deblinger was quoted in the Nantucket Independent on August 3, 2005 as follows: “If you people do not want the February hunt, in no way does Fisheries and Wildlife want to force this down your throat.”

It should be abundantly clear to all but the most biased parties in this debate, that Nantucket is overwhelmingly opposed to another special hunt. If Mr. Deblinger is a man of conviction and his word, and his perspective is respected by the Fisheries and Wildlife Board, any decision other than to end this hunt by the board will raise very serious questions about the propriety and objectivity of the parties involved in the decision.

Thank you for your time.

— Charity I Benz