Deer cull opponents misinformed

Vassar's recent deer cull has led to heated opinions and vehement letters, most over the ethical question of why the College should take the lives of deer. The public enthusiasm for biodiversity on the Vassar Ecological Preserve is an outstanding testament to the importance of that space for the Vassar community and for Poughkeepsie more broadly. Among the various letters to editors, however, what opponents to the cull have not yet made clear is why they feel that deer have more right to survive than do the many species that depend on the Preserve but whose habitat is destroyed by deer.

Ecological studies have shown that deer populations greater than about 10-15 per square mile threaten many species, including plants that used to be on the Vassar Ecological Preserve, including shrub-nesting and ground-nesting birds, as well as amphibians that require a healthy understory. So an overabundance of deer means the death of many other organisms. To defend an overabundance of deer is to declare that deer have more of a right to exist on the Ecological Preserve than these other species do. What puts opponents of culling in a position to make this determination? If they claim to be in favor of living beings, what is the reason for consigning so many to disappear from the Preserve?

Opponents of the cull have used misleading rhetorical strategies to make their cases. They have claimed that the College failed to notify the community, which is false. The public forum I attended last year was packed, and neighbors of the College spoke overwhelmingly in favor of reducing deer counts. Opponents have depicted the College as a large, faceless institution, but this is also false. The decision was made and supported by a large number of thoughtful people who are concerned about many threatened species that depend on the Preserve for survival. Opponents have criticized the College for not repeating the many ecological studies that have already demonstrated that alternative strategies don't work.

Deer move in family herds, and relocating them puts them into already-occupied territories of other herds. Studies in northern New York have shown that most relocated deer die within a year or two because of competition, isolation from family groups, or lack of familiar hiding places and travel routes. Contraception requires regular and successful treatment and has not worked where it has been tried, and it's not clear why opponents think the result would be different here than elsewhere. Opponents have even criticized the Committee for being authors on papers on deer abundance—suggesting that the Committee is at fault for studying the problem as well as for not studying it.

Many of us enjoy seeing deer, but we also enjoy seeing birds, spring flowers and butterflies, all of which suffer in a denuded and low-diversity understory. Many of the species that should thrive on the Preserve are declining globally. Deer are probably more abundant than they ever were because they are subsidized by the gardens of residential neighborhoods and because they lack any predators. Opponents of culling need to acknowledge honestly that deer don't just live peaceably among us; rather they cause tremendous damage to property, vehicles, gardens and biodiversity. And these opponents need to make clear why deer are more important than other species that inhabit the farm, including birds, butterflies, salamanders and spring flowers.

—Mary Ann Cunningham, Associate Professor of Geography