In the interest of promoting open dialogue and providing accurate information, I would like to respond to some of the statements made in recent issues of The Miscellany News by critics of the deer cull on the Vassar Ecological Preserve.
Dr. Richard Born, in his recent letter, “Anthony DeNicola and the (White) Buffaloing of Vassar” (2.11.10), implies that the Farm Oversight Committee consulted only Dr. Anthony DeNicola of White Buffalo, Inc. when we were considering all potential methods of deer management. This is incorrect. We spoke with many people, including Ethan Pierce, Deer Management Program Coordinator for the Shawangunk Ridge Biodiversity Partnership and the Mohonk Preserve, and Raymond Winchcombe, Manager of Field Research Facilities at the Cary Institute of Ecosystems Studies in Millbrook, both of whom manage deer populations at other local Ecological Preserves. We also invited a number of experts to speak at the College, including Troy Weldy, Director of Ecological Management for The Nature Conservancy in New York, and Dr. Alan Rutberg, Research Assistant Professor of Environmental and Population Health at Tufts University, both of whom are familiar with Vassar. We were particularly interested in consulting with Dr. Rutberg, as he has carried out research on the implementation of immunocontraception in small deer populations (Rutberg et al., 2004). Dr. DeNicola, who has a Ph.D. in wildlife management, has overseen numerous projects on contraception, trap and transfer and hunter training. We hired him as a consultant because he is experienced in all available methods of deer management. Please see the Jan. 28, 2010 Miscellany News article, as well as farm.vassar.edu/comittee/deer-management/ for details on the various management options we considered.
Dr. Born cites an alleged discrepancy in our calculations of deer density on the Ecological Preserve. We have reported different numbers at different times because we have different deer density estimates from 2004 and 2009; we also have used two ways of calculating deer densities for the Ecological Preserve. One method includes deer on the Ecological Preserve and also in the surrounding area; the other includes only those deer directly on the Preserve. The number of 70 deer per square mile comes from that second, more conservative estimate. It is important to note that these specific numbers are not being used to determine the details of the deer management plan. We are closely monitoring experimental quadrats across the Ecological Preserve to measure deer impact and to determine the effectiveness of the deer management plan in restoring the overall biodiversity of the site. This assessment is critical, as different locations may have different carrying capacities and so management must be based on overall deer impact.
Dr. Born notes that we were unable to hold a third forum in the fall as originally planned. Unfortunately, constraints were placed on us from outside the College. As soon as we were able, based on our work with local officials, we sent out an all-campus e-mail (Friday, Dec. 4, 2009), followed by two days of informational sessions in the College Center (Monday, Dec. 7, 12 to 3 p.m., and Tuesday, Dec. 8, 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.).
As classes were ending, we were concerned that few students would attend a more formal presentation and we felt that the combination of an all-campus e-mail and tabling for two days in the College Center was the best way to reach as many members of the Vassar community as possible. Dr. Born was clearly aware of our efforts to talk to people who were concerned about the process, as he was one of the two people opposed to the deer cull who signed our comment sheets. For the forums held last year, we specifically invited students involved in the Greens, the Sustainability Committee and the Vassar Animal Rights Coalition to attend. Classes in Environmental Studies, Biology and Philosophy have actively engaged students in discussing the issue. When we sent out the all-campus e-mail, we contacted surrounding property owners and reporters at The Poughkeepsie Journal (interview date Dec. 23) in order to let the wider community know about the cull. Cablevision followed up by taping a segment about the deer cull on Dec. 30 that was to be aired the same day. In short, we have tried to be as open and inclusive in this process as possible.
Some deer management opponents have implied that we tried to hide the cull from the students by carrying it out in January. Our all-campus e-mail and other efforts to communicate in December indicate otherwise. The safety of the many Vassar students and others who use the trails for running, hiking and biking was our primary concern in the timing of the cull.
Ultimately, this controversy is about what we value. Members of the Farm Oversight Committee value all types of living organisms on the Ecological Preserve, including the songbirds, raptors, small mammals, insects, amphibians, reptiles, spiders, trees, shrubs, flowers and fungi. Placing a priority on deer over all other species is short-sighted and damaging to the ecosystem. The decisions we have made have not been easy ones. I believe, however, that the members of our community who visit the Ecological Preserve in the future will see a clear increase in overall biodiversity and health of the ecosystem.
I include a short bibliography below for those interested in learning more about the ecological impacts of deer overabundance. These articles were all published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals. (1) Allombert, S, S. Stockton, and J-L. Martin. 2005. A natural experiment on the impact of overabundant deer on forest invertebrates. Conservation Biology 19:1917-1929. (2) Cote, S.D., T.P. Rooney, J-P. Tremblay, C. Dussault, and D. Waller. 2004. Ecological impacts of deer overabundance. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 35:113-147. (3) Cote, S.D. 2005. Extirpation of a large black bear population by introduced white-tailed deer. Conservation Biology 19:1668-1671. (4) DeCalesta, D.S. 1994. Effect of white-tailed deer on songbirds within managed forests in Pennsylvania. The Journal of Wildlife Management 58:711-718. (5) Myers, J.A., M. Vellend, S. Gardescu, and P.L. Marks. 2004. Seed dispersal by white-tailed deer: implications for long-distance dispersal, invasion, and migration of plants in eastern North America. Oecologia 139:35-44. (6) Pietz, P. and D.A. Granfors. 2000. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) predation on grassland songbird nestlings. The American Midland Naturalist 144:419-422. (7) Rooney, T.P., S.M. Wiegmann, D.A. Rogers, and D.M. Waller. 2004. Biotic impoverishment and homogenization in unfragmented forest understory communities. Conservation Biology 18:787-798. (8) Russell, F.L., D.B. Zippen, and N.L. Fowler. 2001. Effects of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) on plants, plant populations, and communities: A review. The American Midland Naturalist 146:1-26. (9) Rutberg, A.T., R.E. Naugle, L.A. Thiele, and I.K.M. Liu. 2004. Effects of immunocontraception on a suburban population of white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus. Biological Conservation 116:243-250. (10) Waller, D.M. and W. S. Alverson. 1997. The white-tailed deer: A keystone herbivore. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 25:217-228.
—Margaret Ronsheim is an Associate Professor of Biology and a member of the Farm Oversight Committee.
Be the first to comment on this article!