In the mid 1970s Lyme disease was being discovered in Connecticut. By the late 70s, the disease was labeled Lyme arthritis, I suppose because the symptoms of the illness were arthritis-like. In the 1980s, further studies revealed the presence of Lyme disease. Nearly 30 years later and residents of Connecticut still fear the disease. Learn more of the history of Lyme disease in Connecticut by clicking this link.

The Connecticut Coalition to Eradicate Lyme Disease has decided it is time to take a more active role in actually doing something about stopping this crippling disease. They believe that science shows that reducing deer populations down to levels the state’s wildlife biologists agree with of around 8 - 10 deer per square mile, will drastically reduce the presence of the disease, if not totally eliminate it.

Peter Knight, a member of the CCELD, in a recent column published in the Hartford Courant, says that the deer population in Connecticut has jumped from a low of 12 deer in 1896 to somewhere around 150,000 today. If is because of this “unnatural” population of deer, that the disease is so easily spread.

The root cause of Connecticut’s epidemic is an unnatural, environmentally destructive population explosion of deer. The deer are not infected with the disease themselves, but they feed, transport and disperse the deer ticks that pass it on to humans. Just one tick-infested deer can facilitate the delivery of about 1 million deer tick eggs that it scatters as it walks through our backyards, parks, playgrounds, meadows and playing fields. The eggs hatch and turn into ticks that then infect their victims.

Knight says that proof exists in three New England states that reducing deer populations eliminates Lyme disease and that no other methods employed so far in New England or elsewhere have reduced Lyme disease cases. How does a reduction of deer eliminate Lyme disease?

When deer populations are reduced to around 10 per square mile, the deer ticks that spread Lyme and other diseases become locally extinct. It takes a lot of deer to keep the tick species reproducing successfully in an area. But when there are no ticks left, there is no Lyme disease.

Much of the work that led to this understanding was done here by the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, funded by the state.

The CCELD is supported by many including the Connecticut Audubon Society, the Merritt Parkway Conservancy, seven of Connecticut’s Regional Councils of Government representing more than 70 towns, plus emergency physicians, pediatricians, Lyme disease task forces, veterinarians along with many others.

Not everyone agrees with this approach. Mike Gorfinkle, a co-founder of Connecticut No Arrows or Bullets, that advocates for co-existence with wildlife, says in a Connecticut Post editorial that killing deer is not the cure for eliminating Lyme disease. He claims the information that the CCELD is using to promote eradicating Lyme disease is “simplistic” and outdated. Gorfinkle cites studies done by the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies.

It’s quite interesting that Gorfinkle chooses to cite these studies when they don’t really support his claims. It is also difficult to take serious someone’s claims that killing deer won’t stop the disease when his agenda is to stop the killing of deer.

CIES’s studies are about biodiversity. Gorfinkle makes the claim that a reduction in deer population would actually increase the risk of Lyme disease.

The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Wildlife Division erroneously concurs with the coalition that reducing the deer population to eight per square mile in Connecticut would eliminate Lyme disease. The DEP bases this conclusion on the outdated work of Spielman. In fact, as stated above, recent scientific studies have shown that reducing the number of deer will increase the risk of human exposure to Lyme disease due to questing ticks searching for a new host.

This statement is simply not true. As a responsible scientist, one would have to take into consideration the entire study which is claiming that a balanced and diverse ecosystem is a healthy one and one they believe would reduce diseases and the spread of them. From the CIES website:

Thus far, their ecosystem approach has demonstrated that Lyme disease risk decreases when vertebrate communities contain many species (high biodiversity) and increases when the habitat is highly fragmented with lower diversity. Through identifying the conditions that regulate Lyme disease risk, their findings will help determine how ecosystems can be best managed for human health.

From the modeling study itself(pdf), researchers say that science has not been well developed in claims that species diversity reduces Lyme disease.

The concept that species diversity per se may influence risk of exposure to disease has not been well developed, however. We present a conceptual model of how high species richness and evenness in communities of terrestrial vertebrates may reduce risk of exposure to Lyme disease……

The study looks at two aspects of species diversity - richness and evenness. Richness refers to the number of a particular species in a community and evenness suggests a proportional representation of each species and emphasizes species evenness as being the more important.

Ideally, the most appropriate independent variable in our state and regional analysis would be species evenness, because evenness represents the total distribution of opportunities for ticks to feed from each host species.

If we were to assume that the information in this study is accurate and should be considered, for Gorfinkle to claim that a reduction in deer numbers would increase the risk of disease would be to assume that a species evenness already exists. The Connecticut Coalition to Eradicate Lyme Disease bases their approach, which is also supported by Connecticut wildlife biologists, that because there are too many deer, a species evenness as would be called for by the Cary study, doesn’t exist. As a matter of fact, in some areas there are so many deer they have created a huge imbalance of species much due to over browsing.

Further claims by Gorfinkle are actually quite ridiculous. His analysis, as he says in his article, proves deer densities have no effect on Lyme disease.

The DEP reported the 2006 deer density in Windham County to be 28.7 deer per square mile and in Fairfield County to be 29.4 deer per square mile.

l The Department of Public Health reported the 2006 incidence rate of Lyme disease in Windham County to be 135 per 100,000 population, which is more than three times greater than the 40 per 100,000 population in Fairfield County.

Both counties have about the same deer density, yet the incidence rates of Lyme disease are grossly different. Contrary to conclusions of the DEP and Lyme disease coalition, the issue of more deer equaling more Lyme disease is false.

Surely nobody can accurately conclude that this simple comparison makes for any conclusions concerning the incidents of Lyme disease. There are just too many factors to be considered such as habitat, human population densities, etc. Gorfinkle himself expresses that.

Clearly, the deer/Lyme disease relationship is extremely complex and cannot be conveniently solved with archaic and simplistic approaches like killing deer.

Or making claims that reducing deer populations will increase Lyme disease risk.

Gorfinkle calls for “intelligent” Connecticut residents to rely on good science in finding cures for the existence and spread of Lyme disease. It appears to me that is exactly what the CCELD is doing. They have done their homework and are presenting facts to support their ideas. Many prominent, influential and knowledgeable people are getting on board to finally do something about this disease.

I contacted Dr. Geogina Scholl, who is part of the CCELD and been a very active and outspoken advocate for reducing deer populations. I wanted her to help me find information and understand about this claim of “recent studies” showing reducing deer would increase Lyme disease. This is part of what she sent back to me.

There’s no such specific study. He’s talking about the temporary and false impression that tick numbers go up when deer are completely removed as the adult questing ticks are still there looking for a deer. They are on the ground instead of on the deer waiting to drop off and lay eggs. This effect only lasts one or two years at most as the ticks die out in 2 years and no more eggs are laid. They know that. They are just intentionally confusing people. This is the same “evidence” that Laura Simon of the Humane Society used to derail the Nantucket Lyme prevention hunts in 2005 and that she gave as testimony on march 10 to the Environment Committee. Its shameless distortion. You will find this effect referred to in many good tick and deer studies. It is a well known temporary phenomenon and quite irrelevant to the long term reduction of Lyme disease.

It is shameful that people are getting ill and nothing is being done about it. Kudos to the CCELD for their efforts and honest approach at getting something done.

Hunters are conservationists and most understand the importance of a healthy forest. Good deer management requires controlling populations to what the habitat will support. This benefits everyone.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Below is an Op-Ed piece published in the Connecticut Post and written by Terence Savery. Terence Savery, a resident of Redding, is chairman of the Connecticut Coalition to Eradicate Lyme Disease.

*Note* - I have spoken with and communicated with some of the people, including Mr. Savery, about this effort to eradicate Lyme disease in Connecticut. I have been assured that those supporting this effort are also supporting the use of hunting as a management tool in this effort.

Have you heard the good news about Lyme disease?

Did you know that a town on Cape Cod ended its Lyme disease epidemic more than 20 years ago, and has been a virtual “Lyme disease free zone” ever since?

Or that communities in three New England states have ended their Lyme disease epidemics?

If knowledge is power, it rightly resides in the people, and thus a coalition has been formed to help make more people aware of the evidence that our epidemic of Lyme disease is a medical problem with a political solution — one that begins with the right of the people to know that Connecticut’s “Endless Epidemic” is also its “Unnecessary Epidemic.”

The Connecticut Coalition to Eradicate Lyme Disease — an all-volunteer, statewide coalition with support from environmental groups, municipalities, regional planning organizations, individuals, emergency room physicians and other doctors — was formed last summer to make people aware that we don’t have to just learn to live with our Lyme epidemic. We can end it. In doing so, we can also save the native woodlands, wildflowers and songbirds of Connecticut from on-going devastation by unnatural over-populations of deer.

Informing people that they have the option to end the Lyme epidemic, so they can decide for themselves whether they wish to do so, is clearly an idea whose time has come. Seven regional planning agencies in Connecticut representing more than 70 towns have already sent letters of support to Gov. M. Jodi Rell, requesting a coordinated state policy, in response to the coalition’s requests.

To rid our state of its epidemic levels of Lyme disease will require no new medical discoveries, great expenditures or new inventions.

The first step is merely that a sufficient number of government officials and voters become aware that:

* only deer population reduction has ever ended a Lyme disease epidemic; and,

* nothing else ever has.

Restoration of natural levels of 10 or fewer deer per square mile has repeatedly ended epidemic levels of Lyme disease. It works because more than 10 deer per square mile are biologically necessary for deer ticks to reproduce successfully. No deer ticks, no Lyme disease.

The frequent assertion that reducing deer won’t end human Lyme epidemics because mice and other animals still can act as reservoirs of Lyme disease is incorrect and, consequently, misleading. With fewer deer there are too few deer ticks left to sustain the epidemic. This is very well-documented, repeatedly proven fact, not a theory. The towns that are Lyme disease-free controlled deer numbers, nothing else. Mice and other, larger animals don’t preserve the deer tick populations. The evidence and links to more information are on our Web site.

Once the implications of this momentous good news are fully grasped, the next steps should be free and open discussion of the options. The coalition advocates updating and modernizing state deer management and state Department of Health policy to reflect a new and vitally important mission — to end the Lyme epidemic.

Coalition supporters include the Connecticut Audubon Society, the Merritt Parkway Conservancy, Washington Environmental Council, the Aquarion Water Co. and Connecticut Campgrounds Associations.

Others who, at the request of the coalition, have expressed support for its goals in letters to the governor include the Connecticut College of Emergency Physicians, Danbury Hospital and Newtown Lyme Task Forces, the Danbury Hospital Department of Pediatrics, group medical and veterinary practices, local health department medical directors, and more.

Current attempts at prevention of Lyme disease through “personal protection” have failed to stop the growth or spread of the Lyme disease epidemic. The status quo is not acceptable. We hope that Governor Rell will lead new statewide efforts to prevent Lyme disease.

Terence Savery, a resident of Redding, is chairman of the Connecticut Coalition to Eradicate Lyme Disease. The coalition’s Web page can be found at www.EradicateLymeDisease.org

Posted by Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Dr. Georgina Scholl appears to be spearheading the movement by two very well organized and vocal groups that have had it with the threats of Lyme disease and want something done about it. The Connecticut Coalition to Eradicate Lyme Disease and the Fairfield County Municipal Deer Management Alliance believe the way to achieve this goal is to reduce whitetail populations from around 60 or more per square mile down to around 8 or 10 per square mile.

Scholl was to have met with Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell’s chief of staff on Wednesday to discuss the issue.

“First, we are asking the governor for a proclamation to help raise public awareness of the health risks,” said Dr. Scholl. “If every town wants the DEP to help, customized plans can be made [for reducing herd numbers]. Right now, people think hunting deer is a sport and many think it’s inappropriate. But if the information is put out in a way the public can understand, the DEP would be asked to help in getting the population down.”

Hunters would be asked to play an active role in this task.

The reduction could be effected by a number of methods. “They could be rounded up and euthanized,” Dr. Scholl said. “But,” (s)he (sic) added, “there are already as many hunters as there are deer. If each hunter could be encouraged to take just one more deer each year, the problem would be solved. Some towns use sharpshooters-it doesn’t have to be sports hunters.”

It’s not spelled out in this article or previous bits of information I have read in the past, but I can only assume at this point that efforts would have to be made to work very closely with the fish and game experts, including their biologists, to focus the efforts on herd reduction to areas in most need. A random event of simply asking hunters to take more deer may not achieve the goals sought in the worst effected areas.

Howard Kilpatrick, a Connecticut wildlife biologist, says efforts are already underway to reduce herds.

He said the DEP has already instituted initiatives to reduce the deer population in Fairfield County and the shoreline towns, including giving free replacement tags for “antlerless”-does and juveniles. “There is basically no limit on antlerless deer in those areas,” he said. “If you remove one doe each year that means she doesn’t have twins the next year and you have three less deer.”
The DEP is also allowing bait stations where “hunter success is much, much higher” and an “earn a buck program,” where hunters get an extra buck tag for every three antlerless deer taken.

This proposal by Dr. Scholl and others who have signed on to the idea, isn’t being readily agreed upon by everyone. Of course animal rights groups are saying there is no need to kill any animals and others opposed to hunting are lead to speak out against it.

But some, not so radical anti-hunting groups, are jumping on the bandwagon as they too see the threat of Lyme disease as a very serious public health issue.

Connecticut has been notorious over the last few years as a breeding ground of ticks that carry Lyme disease. Many people have been bitten by the ticks and have suffered greatly as a result. Anytime you achieve an imbalance in wildlife populations, as is the case here with the deer, there is always the threat of disease and starvation. The over browsing of deer can destroy the vegetation ultimately ruining the ecosystem rendering it non functional to many of the other species of wildlife.

Hunters are recognized nationwide as being the first conservationists in America working hard to protect all wildlife and the ecosystems that support them. Sometimes hunters are perceived or spoken of in a way that incorrectly depicts their intentions when it comes to game harvest. Hunters understand the importance of a healthy deer herd along with everything else.

The best way to preserve and promote the future of hunting as a way of managing wildlife, is to work to insure a healthy forest complete with healthy animals.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Is hunting morphing into some very odd 21st century, “green”, environmentally and ecologically sound pastime being supported and promoted by those once thought to be anti-hunting? Perhaps but don’t get your hopes too high or relax thinking it’s never going to happen, depending on your perspective. Something is stirring out there that’s sure to make many of us scratch our heads.

We hunters have waged a few battles in our day against lawsuits aimed at putting us out of business. I contend that most of us wage a similar battle everyday in answering questions or looking for justification as to why we hunt. We all have our reasons and they are legitimate ones as well. But can we now say that more people are discovering that hunting’s not bad and they may actually be encouraging others to do it?

Weeeellllll………………..maybe! In debates about hunting and fishing and who’s got more power than another group, we are all guilty to some degree of using any number of hand-picked facts and figures to get our point across. Depending on whose data you want to listen to or believe, there are probably somewhere between 10 and 20 million licensed hunters in the U.S. and considerable more than that who call themselves hunters when polled but haven’t hunted in awhile, etc. Those who oppose hunting will spin that statistic and make a somewhat false leap of logic and pass on to others that 80-90% of people in the U.S. are opposed to hunting. We all know that’s not accurate because the same polls indicate that around 80% of Americans support hunting even though they may never have done it. Why is that?

There are various reasons. For some it was something their family did once upon a time but for a myriad of reasons a particular person opted not to become a hunter. For others they understand the science behind wildlife management and therefore support hunting as a tool. Others may see it as simply an American heritage and they honor the wishes of those who chose to carry on that tradition. In short, the list is long.

Can we now add another group of people to the list of those who understand and appreciate hunting and actually may find real value in doing it? Yes, at least to some degree.

Take a cyber-journey for a minute over to a website called Locavores.com. Here’s what you’ll find near the top of the page.

We are a group of concerned culinary adventurers who are making an effort to eat only foods grown or harvested within a 100 mile radius of San Francisco for an entire month. We recognize that the choices we make about what foods we choose to eat are important politically, environmentally, economically, and healthfully.

The site is full of little buzz words including “foodshed”. I guess we could liken that to a watershed. Your foodshed is food that is available to you locally. Obviously, this is a “green” movement. They believe when you buy food locally it’s good for the environment.

Remember that other buzz word, “locavore”. Locavore was actually a word coined by the four women founders of this website and they promote doing as many things locally. Locavore has caught on dramatically enough that the word has been awarded the New Oxford American Dictionary’s “Word of the Year” award.

“The word ‘locavore’ shows how food-lovers can enjoy what they eat while still appreciating the impact they have on the environment,” said Ben Zimmer, editor for American dictionaries at Oxford University Press. “It’s significant in that it brings together eating and ecology in a new way.”

Could this include hunting locally for your own food?

Before some of you think I have gone “green” and have taken up companionship with the earth people, relax and just pay attention for a moment because you need to understand where people are coming from these days, what their thinking and how we can use this to our advantage.

For many Americans, the sky is falling. Yes, many believe that if we don’t do something about the carbon dioxide gases we humans are responsible for releasing into our atmosphere, the water in the oceans will be competing with the hot springs of Pocatello, Idaho. Aside from this giant scare, we, as good stewards of the world we live in, should be doing low cost, reasonable things to improve our land, air and water.

For the Locavores this means buying your food from a local fruit and vegetable stand and avoiding the supermarket. Because at the supermarket, too many green house gases were emitted by the trucks, planes, trains and automobiles that got the produce to the market.

Often times the food you buy locally grown has fewer chemicals used to grow it and of course this is good for our environment as well. We use less gas in our cars by not traveling to the market……well, you get the picture.

Now we have those believing that hunting game, especially deer is also good for the environment and good to eat. Imagine that? What’s driving this epiphany for locavores is the discovery that too many deer carry disease, they destroy ecosystems by over browsing, they eat up backyard landscaping and they cost millions of dollars a year in property damage from auto accidents, etc. The other aspect that these groups are finding is that deer meat is natural and good for you to eat.

In support of this theory, a reader sent me a tip today about an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times called, “Locavore, Get Your Gun“. The author, Steven Rinella, who grew up in Michigan as a member of a hunting family, says that we hunters need to jump on this bandwagon and use it to protect and promote our hunting heritage.

Nowadays, however, with Vice President Dick Cheney blasting a donor in the face while shooting pen-raised quail, and the former rock star Ted Nugent extolling his “whack ’em and stack ’em” hunting ethos, American hunters do not have a very lofty pedestal from which to defend their interests. We could gain a great deal by refocusing the debate onto our relationship with a sustainable, healthful food supply.

It’s a bit unfortunate that Rinella decides to blast V.P. Cheney and Ted Nugent in trying to make a point. I think he is assuming that the hunting world is modeled after those we make mistakes in following shooting etiquette and shooting on a game ranch and how rocker Ted Nugent carries out his hunting. But his point is well taken.

I’ll further support Rinella’s contention that hunters could use this “green” movement to help their own cause.

First off, in my work as a writer and blogger at the Black Bear Blog, I have actually received non threatening emails from readers who don’t hunt. Some have even shared that they have always actively fought against hunting but are now changing their minds. The reasons for the change of heart aren’t all that varied. Most believe they want to take up the sport for two major reasons. The biggest reason is because they are not vegetarians nor are they interested in becoming one. What they are interested in is healthy meat and what better way to find it than to go shoot your own game. The other reason is to learn how to hunt as a survival technique. Some readers fear that the day will come when they will have to resort to being self-sufficient when it come to finding food.

Another aspect that is drawing a decent amount of attention is around disease and an over population of deer. In Connecticut, most of us know that there are pockets where there are tons too many deer and deer carry ticks that carry Lyme disease. 13,000 people contract Lyme disease a year.

People are now beginning to demand that something be done to stop the spread of Lyme disease. Many thought that there was nothing that could be done but once they discovered that a drastic reduction in deer numbers will effectively remedy the Lyme disease problem, they went to work.

There is now an organization in Connecticut called the Connecticut Coalition to Eradicate Lyme Disease. They work with another group in that state called, Fairfield County Municipal Deer Management Alliance. These two organizations believe that using hunting to reduce deer populations down to manageable levels will effectively eradicate the disease.

I spoke with a member of the CCELD, who was not a hunter and actually was against it, until he bought land in Connecticut where he planned to build his dream retirement home. He then discovered that, being an outdoors person, he was going to be limited on how he could use his land out of fear of contracting Lyme. That’s how he got involved.

He was also telling me that groups, traditionally considered anti-hunting, are joining forces to promote hunting in these areas in order to reduce deer numbers. Can you believe this?

As they say, what goes around comes around and perhaps we are beginning to see that, as Steven Rinella says in his article, hunters were the first Locavores. We hunters have always said that we are the true conservationists and now others are beginning to understand that. When we say that good scientific wildlife management provides for a healthy ecosystem, this also is important for us humans who are part of that ecosystem.

While I agree with Rinella’s assessment that this is an opportunity to better educate and work with groups who have misunderstood the sport of hunting, I don’t think we need to dump all over those hunters whom we might not quite see eye to eye with in order to achieve this goal.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Nicolas Niarchos, a contributing writer for the Yale Daily News, has an article today on efforts by some to convince the state to extend the deer hunting season in Connecticut in order to contribute to a reduction of the total number of deer, particularly in the southern part of the state. This reduction is being urged as a means of reducing or eliminating Lyme disease.

Dr. Georgina Scholl, chair of the Fairfield County Municipal Deer Management Alliance, has been an outspoken advocate for reducing deer numbers in order to virtually eliminate the threat of Lyme disease to humans. She believes that deer herd numbers are directly proportional to the incidences of Lyme disease.

In a recent article, Dr. Scholl says that in 1896 Connecticut had 12 deer and no ticks. Now, the state estimates over 150,000 deer, an increase in tick infestation and incidents of Lyme disease on the rise. Her theory is simple really - reduce the number of deer and you reduce the number of ticks carrying Lyme.

But not everyone sees it that way. Some believe the only way to deal with the ticks is to deal with the ticks not the animals that carry them.

“I think that only elimination or near elimination (of ticks) will have an effect on the population of ticks, something not likely to happen, and certainly not by increasing the hunting season,” Epidemiology and Public Health professor Eugene Shapiro said in an e-mail.

So, the question becomes, what is being done about the problem. If there are instances, like in Maine and in Connecticut where communities have successfully reduced deer numbers drastically and that reduction has resulted in near elimination of the spread of the disease, isn’t this a viable option?

If it is proven effective to use chemicals and insecticides to combat the ticks, then why isn’t it being used or used more readily? Or better yet, perhaps a combination. I don’t have the answers but how long should we debate the issue before something gets done?

*A clarification of Niarchos’ article* I was contacted by Nicolas Niarchos by email and asked if I was interested in making a brief comment about Dr. Scholl’s proposal, etc. Because of time constraints, I sent Niarchos some comments rather than try to connect via telephone. Perhaps this was not such a good idea.

In Niarchos’ article this is what he chose to use from my comments. (I am not accusing Mr. Niarhcos of taking my comments out of context. I sooner believe because of the lack of better communication, he didn’t fully understand my position.)

While some hunting enthusiasts interviewed said they are excited about Scholl’s proposed hunting season, they said they are not entirely convinced that it would work in practice.

Thomas Remington, co-author of ‘The Legend of Grey Ghost and Other Tales from the Maine Woods’ and various New England hunting blogs, said Scholl is overestimating the impact hunting will have on the overwhelming deer population in Connecticut.

“That’s the reduction of herd size to eight deer per square mile,” Remington said.

I’m not sure that is a good representation of the point I was trying to make nor is it exactly clear. In one part of my statement, I referred to Dr. Scholl making a broad statement that reducing the deer population down to around 8 per square mile would be enough to eliminate the threat of Lyme disease. As a matter of fact, this is exactly what she said.

It is well-known that deer numbers in Connecticut must be reduced to less than 12 per square mile to save the woodlands. So will people choose to go one step further and reduce deer numbers to eight per square mile?

Scholl had made references to other communities where they had had success by drastically reducing numbers. She cites one case where deer density ran around 100 per square mile and they got it down to around 10. My comment to Niarchos was that without having all the information at hand for each community, etc., it is difficult to broadly say let’s reduce the deer density to 8 per square mile. This is exactly what I wrote.

The only problem I have with Dr. Scholl’s suggestions and one which I cannot properly address because I don’t have all the information, and that’s the reduction of herd size to 8 deer per square mile. As we know, there are many factors involved in determining the healthy carrying capacity of a piece of land for deer or any other wildlife species. With that I’ll leave it alone. I would have to rely on science what herd size would be needed to eliminate Lyme disease, which is her goal.

For clarification purposes, I believe in the science of carrying capacity and how it relates to deer density. In short, a piece of land can only healthily handle a certain number of deer. It is almost never a set figure because there are too many factors. Some areas can quite easily handle as many as 50 or more deer per square mile while others run into problems with 5 or 6 per square mile. I also believe that Dr. Scholl knows and understands this science as well.

I don’t believe I was attempting to say that Dr. Scholl is overestimating the impact herd reduction by hunting would have. My point was that I would have to defer to science in determining at what density the deer population for any given community and/or region would have to be in order for it to be healthy when considering all aspects of it. What might work in Ridgefield may not work in Bethel.

Tom Remington

———-

Deciding which brand of hunting and fishing equipment to purchase can be as hard as picking between golf club brands and models sometimes. Thankfully if you go to online shopping websites you can often do lots of price shopping as well as read reviews on hunting supplies and golf clubs alike.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Skinny Moose Media’s own Rick from “Tails and Trails” was invited to a press tour of the new facility. He posts pictures and captions. Check it out. It’s quite impressive.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

In so many ways I am glad that people are as vastly different as they are otherwise wouldn’t it be a boring life? You got to laugh at them and yourself or else go insane and I would be leading the pack.

I laughed and laughed until I about fell out my chair this morning as a read a letter to the editor in NewsTimesLive.com out of Danbury, Connecticut. The letter was in response to several of the debates that have taken place there lately concerning Lyme disease.

Lyme disease is carried by ticks that are carried by deer. In places where deer become densely populated, the threat of this disease goes up. I recently wrote an article about how controlling the deer herd’s size makes for a healthy situation.

When people hate hunting, they should just state it and move on because often when they decide to go public with their rants, they show the world their true colors as well as such things and hypocrisy and the desire to protect all animals.

This letter writer begins by referring to a previous article in that paper about how killing deer would eliminate Lyme disease.

Georgina Scholl uses non-factual concepts promoting her bizarre plan for killing deer.

The letter writer then goes on in an attempt to prove the opening statement by first stating that there is no scientific evidence to prove that killing deer eliminates Lyme disease. Then from out of who knows where, these numbers are thrown out stating what it would take to accomplish an eradication of Lyme disease.

There is no scientific evidence to support this hypothesis. It is a cruel hoax to give people false hope that hunting will cure the complex problem of Lyme disease.

The deer herd throughout an entire town would have to be reduced by 86 percent and maintained at that level for deer to be no longer a key host. If there were 30 deer in a one-square-mile tract of land, then 25 deer would have to be killed and no others allowed to take their place.

If there is no scientific evidence to support the hypothesis that killing deer will eradicate Lyme disease, then why does the letter writer attempt to support their claim by stating what they want us to believe are scientific facts on how to effectively eliminate Lyme disease? Is this not a “non-factual concept”?

But it gets better. After three paragraphs where the writer accuses the State Department of Environmental Protection from “scamming” the people and how bow hunting is “hideously cruel” and that hunters are selfish, wanting nothing more than to “push for ever more ridiculous accommodations like extended seasons, Sunday hunting, hunting after sunset, and other insanities ad nauseam”, the hard cold facts are laid on us.

Let me remind you once again of the opening statement accusing the paper’s article writer of using “non-factual concepts promoting her bizarre plan for killing deer”. The letter writer states:

All Connecticut residents should insist that the DEP’s wildlife division be revamped to represent the interests of the 99 percent of the public who do not hunt. Our tax dollars should no longer be used to pay the salaries of hunter DEP employees, solely for the benefit of hunters.

I would have to say that the letter writer has taken upon themselves to use a non-factual concept in order to promote a bizarre plan of revamping wildlife management and to stop paying the salaries of DEP employees whose only purpose is to cater to hunters.

Unreal!!

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Rick from Tails and Trails and Connecticut Hunting Today, is running a deer hunting contest. It looks like a great way to meet a lot of new hunting friends and have a good time doing it.

Go check it out.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Tom Belote, chairman of the Ridgefield, Connecticut deer committee says they will recommend to the Board of Selectmen that the deer hunting season, employed last year to reduce an overgrown deer population, be expanded to include two other areas within the city.

In getting the approval of the hunt for last season, it took several meetings and many heated debates but as Belote himself says, it’s the only option available to the city.

“Whether we like it or not, culling the deer population is the only available option,” he said. “The DEP has taken a number of steps to facilitate deer population control in areas like Ridgefield where deer density is far above what is needed in a healthy environment. Those include adjusting and lengthening the deer season, modifying bag limits and encouraging the harvest of antlerless deer. We have to take advantage of the processes the state has given us.”

Belote has an application in with the Department of Environmental Protection to get approval for a deer hunt in January when demand for use of the parks is at its lowest. If that gets approved, the fall hunting season will be shortened in order to reduce restrictive uses by the public.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

With all the hoopla last year from those opposed to using hunting to cull a burgeoning deer herd on town-owned land in Ridgefield, Connecticut, spreading fear about safety issues, etc., the first controlled deer hunting in Hemlock Hills goes off without a hitch. And to make matters better, Tom Belote of the Deer Implementation Committee said 25 deer were taken by hunters. He deems it a huge success.

Read more from the Ridgefield Press.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

A woman and her boyfriend were headed back to Queens, New York from a visit to Cape Cod. Maria Gicana and her boyfriend were driving on Interstate 95 and stopped at a rest stop in Branford, Connecticut. She parked her car, got out and was headed toward McDonalds, when I coyote attacked her from behind biting her behind the knee.

The biggest reason for the attack say authorities, is because workers at the McDonalds have been feeding the coyote.

When will will we ever learn?

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Under normal circumstances I would not have even given this editorial a second look but it does address an issue I have been covering over the last couple of weeks. In Montville, Connecticut the mayor, Joseph Jaskiewicz, along with chief warden of the Milo Light Nature Preserve John Dufrat, attempted to get an ordinance passed in their town to regulate target shooting and I do believe they had the right motives when they began this venture.

If you follow this link, which is an announcement by the major that he is planning to withdraw the ordinance at the next town council meeting, you will also find all the other links pertaining to the history of this story.

The Norwich Bulletin today offered an editorial about the withdrawing of the ordinance. What is amusing about the editorial is the comment made early on calling those opposed to the mayor’s ordinance as “uninformed”. Here’s the opening statement.

Time remains for the Montville Town Council to act responsibly and not be buffaloed by the uninformed in the matter of target shooting.

When you read down through the editorial it becomes very clear that the editor is perhaps the one uninformed and is attempting to buffalo the public into believing something that isn’t true.

The editor must believe that because so many residents of Montville showed up to voice opposition to the proposed ordinance that they must be uninformed and are trying to change the mind of the town council . Last I checked, that’s how a so-called democracy worked.

I think if the editor were to actually read the ordinance and ask someone not emotionally bent on ridding the world of guns, what the ordinance says, they would be told the truth. The ordinance as written, gives a blanket ban on the discharging of a weapon - including all those they went on to list beyond a gun.

The ordinance doesn’t address target shooting. It bans shooting a weapon. How can a person defend themselves ever if they cannot ever discharge a weapon in self defense?

I also believe that if the editor got out from behind the big desk for a moment, they would discover that the good citizens of Montville ARE interested in public safety. What they are not interested in is two people taking away their ability to defend themselves.

Re-write the ordinance and present it in a different fashion that regulates an idiot target practicing on Main Street and the people will line up to sign on.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Last week things got a little heated in a debate over an ordinance proposed by the Mayor of Montville, Connecticut, Joseph Jaskiewicz with the urging on of the chief warden of the Milo Light Nature Preserve. The ordinance was drafted in an attempt to regulate target shooting in the town. It got many of the residents riled up.

Last week at a town council meeting to discuss the ordinance, over 175 citizens decended on the town hall demanding that they not be stripped of their right of self defense. It was decided then to postpone the meeting until a larger facility could be used.

Now it appears that meeting will not take place as Mayor Jaskiewicz has withdrawn the ordinance. I really don’t have anymore information than that at this time. I will attempt to get more information.

The only statement that I know of by the mayor came through the Norwich Bulletin that said:

In withdrawing the ordinance, Jaskiewicz said “this ordinance was drafted with the intent of assuring the public’s safety with respect to target shooting, certainly never to take anyone’s rights away.”

Whether the mayor will consider a re-write of the ordinance is unclear. In reading the ordinance I was sent, it did little to regulate target shooting and a lot to prohibit allowing someone to lethally defend themselves if deemed necessary.

You can read all the previous posts on this subject from the list of links below.

Lies and More Lies to Take Away Our Guns

Montville Residents Storm Council Chambers, Say No to Anti-Gun Ordinance

Montville’s Dufrat Corrects My Misinformation About Shooting Ordinance

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

*Scroll for Updates*

Last Update was 4:30pm
This morning I received comment from John Dufrat, chief warden of the Milo Light Nature Preserve in Montville, Connecticut, correcting me on information that I wrote about in yesterday’s blog.

At issue here is Mr. Dufrat’s attempt at pushing through an ordinance to regulate target shooting in the town. Dufrat’s comment asked that I would post a retraction to my statements and he also stated,

…..I am certain that will not occur.

Mr. Dufrat is half right and half wrong. I will reprint his comments here in a new blog so readers won’t have to go searching for his comments but I will not retract all of my statements. Here is Mr. Dufrat’s comments.

Mr. Remington:
I regret to inform you, that you have been supplied with incorrect information regarding the proposed ordinance in Montville, CT.
In the preamble of the ordinance it staes three times that the Town of Montville recognizes the rights of it’s citizens to target shoot within town.
Article IV of the ordinance specifically states:”
IV. This Ordinance is not intended to, nor does it, prohibit persons from exercising their constitutional rights with respect to gun ownership and self defense.”
It is absolute correct that this ordinance in NO way bans the ownership, possesion, transportation, or use of any firearm in Montville. It simply seeks to establish the same safety zone as the current hunting regulations.
The proposed ordinance does contain the same 500 foot minimum distance from a hunter to an occupied dwelling as does CT General Statute 26-66-1 (d). This General Statute has been in effect for many years here in Connecticut.
Section 26 of the General Statutes is the section of laws regulating the behavior of hunters. The General Statutes include a provision that the smallest parcell of land that can legally be hunted is 10 acres. The Montville ordinance does not require the 10 acre lot size for target shooting.
Additionally, the ordinance specifically states that existing target ranges and gun clubs within the town are NOT affected by the ordinance.
The individual shooting next to the preserve does so on a 2.36 acre parcel with his target area within 500 feet of 7 neighboring homes. Additionally, one of the main trails on the preserve is directly BEHIND his target area. Thus, he shoots on a lot roughly 1/5 the size the state recognizes as the smallest size safe to hunt on. Additionally, there are 7 homes within the 500 foot zone the state already considers the minimum safe distance with regard to firearms disc