Ridgefield Deer Committee
Ridgefield Recreation Center
195 Danbury Road
Ridgefield, CT 06877
A meeting of the Ridgefield Deer
Committee was held in the Charter Oak III Room of the Ridgefield Recreation
Center, 195 Danbury Road, Ridgefield, CT
06877 on January 24, 2005 at approximately 7:00 p.m.
The following members were present:
Tom
Belote
Guy
Bocchino
Andy
Bodner
Tom
Castellani
Helene
Daly
Donald
Damoth
Matthew
Denesuk
Penny
Hoffman
Pat
Hutchings
Peter
Keeler
Sid
Kelley
Jack
Sanders
Raymond
Sementini
Pat
Sesto
Gwen
Thaxter
Tom
Venus
Mr. Belote chaired the meeting. Capt. Roche of the Ridgefield Police
Department and Barbara Manners, Selectman were present. Nancy McDaniel was present to take minutes. Several member of the public were also in
attendance.
NEW BUSINESS
Ms. Thaxter
introduced Dr. Os Schmitz, professor and associate dean at the Yale School of
Forestry. Dr. Schmitz opened by
defining an ecologist as one who studies the interaction between organisms and
the environment, which is a different emphasis from that of an
environmentalist. Dr. Schmitz’ intent
was not to recommend solutions, but to present scientific evidence and then
allow the Committee to make a decision on actions.
He reviewed a
case study in deer management by the CT DEP at Bluff Point near Groton, CT and
questioned some of its conclusions. The
study consisted of 806 acres closed off by a metal gate. The deer population soared to 300 at the
site, ate all the vegetation and began to die of starvation. The Department of Environmental Protection
biologist said that the area could support only 25 deer for optimum fat, body
weight and reproductive rates.
The state
authorized a hunt, which reduced the population to 25, but in time it rose again. Three hunts took place, and each time the
population returned to high levels.
Since deer
ought to increase at a lower rate due to the biological conditions present, the
question is what accounts for the high numbers. It must be assumed that deer are coming in from another area and
the population is not closed.
The landscape
at Bluff Point is urbanized. Deer leave
built-up landscapes and go to green areas for food and protection. Dr. Schmitz emphasized the need to examine
how we use the land and the consequences of deer moving across the landscape.
He argued for
the concept of ecological balance (or carrying capacity), the notion that food
available in an area can support a defined number of deer and mortality must
balance reproduction. Beyond that
defined number, reproduction will cease or the young will die off. Death due to starvation is nature’s way of
reaching balance.
There is a
problem with the state’s determination that 25 deer is the balanced number at
Bluff Point. If the population rose
after the hunts, it suggests that the balance is higher than 25. In response to a committee member’s
question, Dr. Schmitz agreed that the 300 deer on the preserve was too dense,
but reiterated that the state’s goal of 25 appeared arbitrary.
Dr. Schmitz
reviewed slides previously presented by Howard Kilpatrick of the DEP. The slides were meant to demonstrate the
effects of overbrowsing. Dr. Schmitz pointed out several flaws with the slides,
concluding these slides to not provide evidence regarding the effects of
overbrowsing.
Dr. Schmitz
reviewed his work in North Saskatchewan with a forest management company that
needs to regenerate its forest for paper pulpwood. It has the additional need to reconcile timber management with
indigenous people’s desire to protect wildlife. He stated that wolves feed on moose who feed on spruce, jack pine
or aspen. The company clear cuts trees,
replants and has a 60% failure rate because moose eat the seedlings. The result is that moose are hunted or
chased away. Aspens then take over the
new forest because it is a dominant competitor with spruce.
The company
needed to get the right mix of trees. A
fresh approach is to understand how moose interact with the forest and enlist
them as agents to manage a mixed forest.
Since moose prefer aspens, the company was able to exclude the moose
from some areas to promote the desired level of aspen growth, while allowing
them to browse others to foster the spruce.
This produced the desired balance of plant densities. It is preferable and less costly to involve
moose than human beings in reforestation.
A problem
emerges in that clear cutting scares moose away. They will manage a forest only on the edges where they feel
safe. Can moose behavior be altered? One approach is to do patch-cut harvesting
instead of clear-cut so that moose will feel safe and can hide. Such strategic harvesting can alter the way
moose use the landscape. The company
must be willing to embrace adaptive management of the land.
Dr. Schmitz
stated that in the past hunting was used to control the environment, but that
it is better to think “outside the box” and create a new strategy.
One reason for
Connecticut’s deer population increase is vegetation change. Edge habitats, appealing to deer, are on the
increase as homeowners landscape their properties. Biodiversity loss can be correlated with rise in deer
abundance. Perhaps landscapes should be
changed.
Dr. Schmitz
commented that there is no “silver bullet.”
There is always a tradeoff between deer density and plant density. Schmitz encouraged the committee to ask what
does Ridgefield want and how much vegetation is wanted?
In order to
act, Ridgefield needs a:
Hunting as a
management solution requires a:
He noted that
the town does not have a GPS mapping system, which is needed to document
whether there are “hot spots” of damage or overall damage. With proper mapping, the town could then
proposed that population reduction is perhaps only warranted in these hot
spots. Hunting, which alone does not
solve the problem, could be necessary initially, but other steps should be taken
as well. Reducing lawns and choosing ornamentals
that do not attract deer are advisable, but may increase Lyme Disease
potential. Contraceptives work only in
closed population areas and Schmitz stated that he does not believe they will
ever be a viable solution in an unrestricted setting.
Dr. Schmitz
indicated that Yale students might be available to work on a deer survey. He cautioned the committee against simply
recommending hunting as a solution without having clear goals and other
supporting actions. He closed by emphasizing that it is important to determine
what level of deer can be tolerated and to plan for the long term.
MINUTES
Ms. Sesto
suggested holding the minutes for approval at the next meeting, at which time
there will be three sets to approve.
The membership agreed.
NEXT
MEETING
The next
meeting will be on February 8, 2005 in the Copper Beach Room of the Recreation
Center. Denise Savageau, Greenwich
Conservation Director, is scheduled to speak.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms. Sesto
adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy McDaniel