In one week, beginning Jan. 7, 2010, Vassar College killed 64 of the 100 friendly deer who lived on and around Vassar Farm. The deer were baited with food and shot en masse. Those that escaped were terrorized and left without the small families they need to survive. Not surprisingly, the administration conducted the kill during Winter Break, when students and faculty were away. It was therefore left to local residents, many of whom had come to know the deer literally in our own backyards, to create a grassroots organization called Save Our Deer to try and stop the killing. Our actions, which were covered extensively by local media, can be found on: saveourdeer.webs.com. Despite public opposition, the College states that it will consider more kills in the future.
Ironically, the College decided to decimate our small local deer herd in the name of ecology, at a time when the Farm is being transformed into a “preserve.” However, deer culling is usually implemented when a deer herd is overpopulated, resulting in starvation or illness, or if a herd has seriously damaged a working farm or timber stand. None of these applies to Vassar Farm. Indeed, the real reason for the kill given in the Vassar Farm Oversight Committee’s June 2009 Deer Management Memorandum is that deer are eating the underbrush on the Farm. Of course, this is normal deer behavior in winter. A Jan. 28, 2010 Miscellany News article (“Deer culling elicits local controversy”) explains further that because deer eat native saplings, there could be a problem when the native trees eventually die out. Since this means that the Farm will show no damage from deer for at least 20 years, one would imagine that a Committee of 27 Vassar College academics could come up with a better idea by then.
Even if there was an immediate problem, the bait-and-shoot method of deer control is considered cruel and unethical even by many hunters, who find it unsportsmanlike. Yet Professor of Biology Margaret Ronsheim, who sits on the Committee, states in the Jan. 28, 2010 Miscellany News article that this was “one of the most humane options.” Unfortunately, her unfounded comment exemplifies the lack of objective analysis and fact finding behind the College’s actions. Read the memorandum on Vassar’s website and it is apparent that shooting deer was a foregone conclusion. There is no serious investigation into alternate non-lethal methods. For example, the Committee purposely cites the prohibitive cost of over $100,000 for fencing the entire 500-acre Farm, when only smaller forested areas would need fencing, at a much lower cost. Similarly, the memorandum dismisses relocating deer, stating that is it “unlikely that any locations would be willing to receive deer.” Yet at least three people, unsolicited, contacted Save Our Deer, offering relocation to their land.
So why did the Committee fail to extensively research non-lethal methods when it certainly had time to do so, and instead recommend such a violent solution? I was a lawyer to a Fortune 500 company for 20 years, and I understand how large institutions work. It takes just one person who is passionate about an idea, and who is believed by others to be an expert, to put an idea into action. Just like at Vassar, first a committee is formed. Then, a report is prepared which relies heavily on an expert’s knowledge. Finally, the report supports what the expert wants to get done. Usually, the system works. Here, it failed.
When the College realized that its actions were extremely controversial and that bad press would follow this story everywhere, it was time to stop the kill and review the situation. I personally asked President of the College Catharine Bond Hill to stop killing after the first night, with 44 deer dead. I promised that if she agreed, the protests would stop. She refused. Now the Committee is following suit and going to extreme measures to defend a defenseless decision. Deer are being vilified with the odd accusation that they eat baby birds out of their nests. In spite of substantial opposition to the kill, Associate Dean of Faculty Marianne Begemann minimizes the outcry as “countless e-mails from animal rights groups.” The truth is that most of us live nearby, and are outraged at the College’s hubris in single-handedly wiping out our local wildlife. We have had the rare pleasure of observing these beautiful animals up close, and find it disturbing that their very acceptance of humans made the deer easier targets.
It is time that the College face that it made a mistake, and that it will cost more in poor public relations and potential donor backlash, to continue on this ill-set course. More importantly, it is time that the College recognize the harm done to its own primary mission as an educational institution. Several of the 30-plus letters to the editor of The Poughkeepsie Journal on the kill expressed shock that an institution of higher learning would utilize such a violent method of dealing with a perceived ecological issue. Since students learn by example as well as in the classroom, it was up to the administration and faculty to model ethical stewardship of Vassar Farm. Exhibiting trigger-happy behavior toward the native wildlife falls far short of that goal, and sends a message that violence is a viable option in life. Sadly, this time the College’s failure as a role model hurt not only the student body, but also the unsuspecting deer that lived peaceably among us.
—Marcy Schwartz is a local resident of Poughkeepsie, N.Y., and is the founder of Save Our Deer. For more information about Save Our Deer, visit saveourdeer.webs.com.
10 comments
Yes, yes, of course. Positive and negative effects on Vassar are measured in terms of application numbers. So very logical.
I just wanted to correct some things from your column. You wrote that Vassar dismissed the possibility of relocating the deer because nobody would take them. In reality, it is illegal to transport wild animals in New York State. Furthermore, you acknowledge the fact that it is appropriate to cull deer when there is overpopulation. For an ecosystem to be sustainable, there has to be at most 15 deer per square mile. Vassar has 125 deer per square mile, over eight times the recommended amount, so by your own reasoning it was okay for Vassar to cull the deer in this situation. Finally, you forgot to mention that the venison went to feed poor and homeless families. Your obsession with deer seems to have blinded you to the fact that their death helped several hundred humans in need.
Just thought you should know,
Common Sense
By the way, lyme's diesease sucks....i know all about how correlation does not equal causation, but its sure is funny how fast I got lymes desiease when I moved here. .