Shelton Deer Report Draft
Shelton Deer Report Draft
Shelton Deer Report Draft
Shelton, CT
Prepared for the Board of Aldermen
February 2015
The deer line in overbrowsed forests and swamps plainly marks the
standup height at which hungry or starving deer feed.
-Leonard Le Rue, The World of the White-tailed deer, 1962
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
The Shelton Deer Committee was established by the Board of Aldermen in 2013 to study
the impacts of deer in Shelton and to make management recommendations. This report
summarizes those findings and recommendations. The Deer Committee made every
effort to encourage public participation throughout the process, including press releases, a
blog, Facebook posts, and a display at the Community Center. Very few public comments
were received, primarily from hunters opposed to professional culling.
The overabundance of suburban deer is a growing problem that has posed challenges
throughout the range of the White-tailed Deer. Suburbs provide ideal edge habitat for
deer, which are highly adaptable and have learned to live in close proximity to humans.
Deer have a high birth rate to compensate for heavy predation from wolves, mountain
lion, and humans. When suburban communities become built out, hunting
opportunities and predation are largely eliminated, and the deer population rises until it
exceeds the food supply. The primary control for the deer herd is then malnutrition, deervehicle strikes, and fawn mortality at a high population density.
The consequences of overabundant deer include ecological damage as the forest
understory is eliminated, with a loss of habitat for some species of songbirds and
amphibians. Trees are unable to regenerate and water quality is degraded. After natural
food sources have been eliminated, deer are forced to forage along roadways and in
yards, leading to increased deer/vehicle strikes, landscaping damage, and a higher
abundance of deer ticks in lawns.
The bacteria responsible for Lyme Disease is carried by the Deer Tick (Ixodes
scapularis). This tick has a complex life cycle that includes a final meal on a large
mammal, usually a deer, in order to successfully reproduce. In all studies where deer
populations have been reduced to a threshold of 8-12 deer per square mile, the tick
population and associated illnesses have been substantially reduced or eliminated.
Deer population estimates of Shelton/Monroe by the CT DEEP have ranged from 29 to
73 deer per square mile, equal to 800 - 2000 animals within city limits. An ecologically
sustainable population ranges from roughly 10 to 30 deer per square mile depending on
the type of habitat.
Deer browse assessments conducted by the Conservation Agent during 2014 revealed
moderate to severe damage to the forest understory in Shelton open space. In some areas,
nearly all vegetation has been eliminated below the browse line. Most other areas showed
signs of unsustainable rates of browsing, with very few tree seedling surviving and
stunted vegetation throughout.
There were an average of 49 deer/vehicle strikes per year reported to the Shelton Police
between 2011 and 2013. This does not include Route 8, or deer strikes that were not
reported to the Police. The State of Connecticut has found that less than one out of every
six deer strikes are reported to the Police, so the true number of deer strikes in Shelton
may be much higher.
4
There were 29 confirmed and probable case of Lyme Disease in Shelton reported to the
State for 2013. The CDC estimates that only ten percent of cases are reported, so the true
number of annual cases may be closer to 290.
Shelton residents are thought to spend millions of dollars each year due to the high deer
population. Costs include landscaping damage, deer fencing, deer repellents, tick control
yard treatments, vehicle damage, crop damage, and health costs due to tick-borne
illnesses in both people and pets.
The Deer Committee recommends that the City of Shelton implement deer control
immediately, because any delay will make the problem more difficult to address in the
future. The initial goal should be an ecologically sustainable deer population for which
our natural areas can provide sufficient forage and deer would no longer be forced to
browse along roadsides and in backyards.
A new Deer Management Committee should be created to implement a program of
controlled recreational hunts on select open space properties, beginning with bowhunting
on a few suitable properties. Hunters would need to apply for a special city permit and
may be subject to background screening, interviews, and reference checks.
Controlled recreational hunting is highly cost effective and is the most commonly used
form of deer control in Fairfield County by municipalities and by organizations such as
the Nature Conservancy and the Audubon Society.
The new Deer Management Committee would establish rules for hunting in the open
space, such as minimum distances from trails or property lines. A small number of open
space properties initially open to hunting would be expanded as the program matures. All
actions concerning hunting on city properties would be subject to review by the
Conservation Commission and approval by the Board of Aldermen.
Municipalities and other landowners are protected from recreational liability under state
statute for activities that occur in natural open space areas when no fee is charged for the
activity. There have been no recorded bowhunting fatalities involving nonhunters in
Connecticut. Bowhunters shoot from tree stands. The range is limited and arrows that
miss the mark are directed into the ground. The majority of bowhunting injuries are
sustained when hunters falls from tree stands.
To achieve the primary goal of an ecologically sustainable deer population, some
properties may need to have the canopy strategically thinned so more sunlight reaches the
forest floor and the growth rate is increased. This can be done by girdling and dropping
trees, or by a program of selective logging or harvesting for firewood.
Other recommended measures include facilitating the creation of a volunteer-lead
program to match hunters with private property owners (most property in Shelton is
privately owned), collecting data, and conducting public outreach.
Key Definitions
Browse Feeding on woody plants. Technically, deer browse on the twigs
of shrubs and saplings during the winter, and graze on soft forbes (e.g.
wildflowers and ferns) during the summer. However, the term overbrowsing
is generally used for the combination of excessive browsing and grazing by
deer.
Built out When most of the buildable land in a community has been either
developed or reserved for parkland and open space, the town is said to be
built out.
Carrying capacity - The number of animals that can inhabit an area without
environmental degradation, as determined by assessing the health of the
forest understory. Cultural Carrying Capacity is the number of animals a
community deems appropriate for reasons of safety or property damage.
Controlled hunt Hunts with a limited number of special permits and
specific rules defined by the landowner that may be more stringent than
general hunting regulations.
Deer tick - A common name for the black-legged tick (Ixodes scapularis),
which transmits Lyme Disease and other tick-borne illnesses.
Keystone species - A species whose presence and role within an ecosystem
has a disproportionate effect on other organisms within the system.
breed, it must have a final meal on a large mammal. All data collected so far show that
when the population of deer is brought down below a threshold of 8-12 deer per square
mile, the tick population collapses. Above that threshold deer density, sometimes there is
a direct relationship between the deer population and ticks, and sometimes there is not,
due to other variables in the environment. Dr. Stafford noted that suburban recreational
deer hunting is capable of only bringing the population down to 30 deer per square mile,
which may have modest impacts on Lyme Disease rates. But in order to have significant
impact on tick-borne illnesses, the population needs to be brought down to 8-12 deer per
square mile. Dr. Stafford provided copies of the "Tick Management Handbook."
June 2014: Joel Hurliman, Shelton Police Chief: Chief Hurliman presented statistics
for deer-vehicle strikes reported to the Shelton Police Department from 2011 2013, a
total of 147 deer strikes were reported, an average of 49 deer per year. This does not
include Route 8. Of those deer, 79 were euthanized by the responding officer. The Chief
was asked if he had any concerns over possible hunting in Shelton Open Space, whether
by bow or firearm, and he did not providing all hunters abide by existing laws and
regulations.
Public Comments
Several emails and comments at meetings were received from hunters opposed to
professional culling. No other comments were received.
Causes of Overabundance
High deer densities are a direct result of suburban sprawl. The ideal edge habitat of
backyards and roadways, in combination with a lack of predation (including hunting),
inevitably leads to greater numbers of deer.
10
Figure 1: Healthly forest in Easton where there is deer control and forest management. The
understory dense and it is difficult to see through all the vegetation.
The lack of predation is the primary factor for deer abundance, due in part to the historic
elimination of wolves and mountain lion, although Eastern Coyote has recently emerged
as a predator of fawns. Before a suburb is built-out, there are still many areas where
hunting occurs, and this keeps deer populations in check. Once most of the land has been
either developed into housing tracts or preserved as parkland, hunting ceases to be an
important factor, and the deer population levels increase dramatically.
The edge habitat of housing developments and roadsides typically generates more food
for deer to eat than a mature forest. Extra light reaches the ground and allows for lush
plant growth along the edges of yards and roadways. Gardens and shrubbery are also an
abundant source of food for deer, as are bird feeders. In comparison, native plants in a
forest grow more slowly and provide less food due to a lack of sunlight. Deer are very
adaptable, and learn to thrive in the presence of humans, dogs, and cars in order to take
advantage of the abundant food source.
A deer herd can theoretically double its population each year under ideal conditions
because a healthy, well-fed doe normally has two fawns in the spring. Heavy predation
has historically been the limiting factor on the population density. In suburban areas,
however, the population is limited only by car-vehicle strikes, predation of fawns by
coyote, and ultimately malnutrition, as the number of deer exceed the winter food supply.
A starving doe is less likely to give birth to twin fawns.
11
Figure 2: A Pennsylvania deer exclosure demonstrates the profound impact deer have on the
environment. Vegetation outside the fenced area is limited to ferns and grasses that deer do not eat.
The food supply in natural areas tends to decrease as the deer population increases and
deer eradicate their own food sources. Deer then begin to frequent roadsides and
backyards, leading to many of the more visible impacts that residents are concerned with.
There is a predictable cascade of impacts that begins when a suburban community
becomes built-out and hunting is mostly eliminated. Buildout occurs when most of the
land has either been developed or set-aside for parkland (where hunting is typically
prohibited). Impacts do not begin all at once. Rather, one impact leads to another,
resulting in a cascade of impacts over time. Some impacts may not be felt for decades,
such as the loss of trees.
Early impacts: As deer numbers begin to rise, the composition of the forest (and
home garden) gradually changes as the plant species favored by deer are eaten faster than
they can grow and reproduce. In the backyard, favorites like hostas, tulips, and arborvitae
are repeatedly damaged year after year until the homeowner gives up and replaces them
with deer resistant plants. Damage is uneven. Some locations may be repeatedly hard
12
hit, while other areas are rarely touched, depending on the specific daily routes traveled
by deer each day. Black-legged ticks carried by deer become abundant, and people begin
to contract tick-borne illnesses. Deer-vehicle strikes increase. In the forest, favored tree
saplings such as maple and oak disappear, and are replaced with birch or beech. This can
have long-term consequences to the future composition of the forest canopy, with the
eventual loss of acorns that sustain many animal species through the winter. Another
impact occurs when deer eat the flowers of a plant. Although they may not kill the plant,
they prevent it from reproducing. This has an impact on flowering shrubs and
wildflowers such as Pink Ladyslipper, which often have their blooms nipped off. All of
Shelton has likely reached this stage.
Figure 3: Arborvitae are favored by deer and are often stripped below the browse line each
winter unless protected.
Continuing Impacts: If the deer population continues to remain high, the plants that
deer prefer to eat will be eradicated, and deer will begin to eat plants that are less
nutritious. Gardeners will notice browse damage on plants that deer previously ignored.
Forests will begin to look noticeably thinner. In a healthy forest, there should be many
areas where a person cannot see very far due to the proliferation of shrubs and saplings.
In the overbrowsed forest, the forest begins to take on a park-like appearance due to a
lack of undergrowth. This can be deceptively attractive as hayscented fern and some
grass species begin to proliferate in the absence of competition from other plants. Other
forest species, such as songbirds that nest in shrubs, are impacted and may not be able to
breed and raise young. At this point, the carrying capacity of the forest is reduced
because there is now less food for deer to eat. Deer will then spend a greater proportion
of their time along roadways and in back yards, resulting in more deer-vehicle strikes and
landscaping damage. Some areas of Shelton have reached this stage.
13
Figure 4: Forest in Easton without deer control showing a browse line below which there is no
vegetation.
Final Impacts: Over a period of several decades, deer will have eliminated much of
their food supply and are highly vulnerable to malnutrition and starvation during the
winter. They will eat nearly everything within reach. The forest floor is completely
devoid of vegetation except for patches of a few plants deer cannot eat, such as invasive
Japanese Barberry and grasses. These areas are subject to increased rates of erosion and a
lack of cover for other animals, including amphibians and songbirds that nest on the
ground or in the shrubs. The deer are so thorough in their efforts to find food that a
browse line may be seen at a level of four feet above the ground. Starvation indicator
foods such as beech saplings and red cedar will show browse damage. These foods fill the
stomach but provide little nutrition. Due to malnutrition, the birth rate will decrease, and
deer may decrease in size as well. At this stage, homeowners often experience severe
damage to landscaping and may resort to deer fencing. Deer repellents may not work as
well as they once did. If this final stage is continued over a period of time, bottom-up
deforestation occurs as the mature trees eventually succumb to diseases or are knocked
over in storms. No young trees will take their place. The seeds of plants that once existed
in the area are no longer viable, so even if the deer population is reduced substantially, it
will take many years for these plants to recover. Finally, the carrying capacity of deer on
the land is much lower than it once was because most plants have been eradicated. Land
that could once support 25 or 30 deer per square mile may now only support 5 or 10 deer
per square mile. Parts of Shelton have reached this stage.
14
Deer are highly adaptable to living in close proximity to humans and readily learn to
forage in back yards and vegetable gardens. The impacts to residential properties
gradually increase as deer exceed the carrying capacity of nearby woods and deplete wild
sources of food. Deer are then forced to forage near humans and become acclimated to
living amongst housing developments. This gradual process of acclimation explains why
deer often become far more noticeable and bolder near homes over the course of several
years even if the overall deer population has not substantially increased during the same
time period. Acclimation to people is hastened when residents feed deer.
Figure 5: Adult deer ticks require a meal on a large mammal, usually a deer,
before they can drop off and lay eggs. This deer is infested.
There is evidence that Lyme Disease has existed for many years. Genetic material from
Lyme Disease bacterium was found in a 5300-year-old European ice mummy.4 During
15
colonial times, when New England was largely cleared for farmland and deer were nearly
exterminated, Deer Ticks and Lyme Disease were virtually unknown except in isolated
areas. Montauk Knee, now believed to be Lyme Disease, was a malady found at the tip
of Long Island where deer were maintained for hunting purposes.5 As the deer
population began to rise in tandem with suburban sprawl, deer ticks and Lyme Disease
began to proliferate.
In studies conducted on islands and peninsulas in which deer densities were reduced to 812 deer per square mile or less, a strong relationship was found between deer, ticks, and
Lyme Disease. Lyme Disease was substantially reduced. These studies include Mumford
Cove in Groton, Connecticut; Monhegan Island, Maine; and a 248-acre site in
Bridgeport.6
The incremental removal, reduction or elimination of deer has clearly been
shown to substantially reduce tick abundance in many studies. Observational
studies and computer models suggest that a reduction of deer densities to less
than twenty deer per square mile may significantly reduce tick bite risk, while
lower levels (~8 deer/mi2) would interrupt the enzootic cycle of Lyme disease and
transmission of B.burgdorferi to wildlife and humans. Dr. Kirby Stafford, Tick
Management Handbook7
Studies in which a very high deer population is somewhat reduced, but not to the low
level of 8-12 deer per square mile, are less conclusive. In some studies, a modest
relationship was found between deer numbers and tick populations, while in others no
relationship was found. This has lead to a working hypothesis often used by the Fairfield
County Deer Alliance of a threshold deer population required for tick propagation. The
exact threshold number is unknown and may vary depending on the terrain, but is
believed to be somewhat above 8-12 deer per square mile based on studies and computer
simulations. Above that threshold deer density, other environmental factors, such as the
rodent population and ground cover type, may become more significant in determining
tick abundance. When deer are highly abundant and a small number of them are removed,
ticks are still able to find a deer host on which to feed. As a result, the remaining deer
simply carry more ticks. If enough deer are removed, however, some of the ticks will
perish before they can find a deer host and breed, and the life cycle of the tick will be
interrupted.
16
As a comparison, the ideal deer densities of 8-20 deer per square mile translate to
between 224 and 560 total deer in Shelton, with the lower number most effective in
reducing the risk of Lyme Disease. If we assume the total deer population is 1400 deer in
Shelton (based on the average of the estimated densities), then Sheltons deer population
is between 250% and 625% of the recommended deer population. Even if the very lowest
estimate of Sheltons deer population turned out to be the most accurate, Sheltons deer
population would still be between 145% and 360% of the recommended density.
winter but provides little nourishment. This is evidence that deer have eliminated
their winter source of food due to unsustainable rates of browsing and are now
suffering from malnutrition during the winter. Because the forest has already
been stripped of vegetation, moderate deer control alone may be insufficient to
rejuvenate forest growth. A forest management plan that includes thinning of the
canopy to let in more light and increase plant growth rates may be needed to
restore the growth of tree saplings.
Figure 6: The Long Hill Open Space was nearly devoid of vegetation below the browse line
in wooded areas.
Nells Rock Assessment: The Abby Wright property off of Nells Rock
Road (OS#27.04) showed signs of unsustainable browse damage, but the area was
not yet stripped to the degree as observed in the Long Hill area. Young saplings of
most key tree species were rare or absent. On some of the sample plots, mapleleaf viburnum, a shrub that is normally three to four feet tall, persisted at a height
of less than one foot. Taller specimens often showed signs of having been nipped
off recently by deer, but a few plants were still able to flower and set seeds.
Woodland asters were heavily cropped to within a few inches of the ground. Plots
at lower elevations still had plenty of plant growth (growing conditions are
better), but this consisted mostly of plant species not favored by deer, such as
hayscented fern and sweet pepperbush. However, these unpalatable plants did
sometimes conceal deer favorites such as Jack-in-the-Pulpit, and one plot that
initially appeared to be full of mostly hayscented fern turned out to be quite
diverse in the number of plant species growing there, partly hidden by the fern.
19
Figure 7: Open Space off of Nells Rock Road showing a thinning understory. In the foreground is a
carpet of stunted Maple-Leaf Viburnum, a shrub that is normally four feet tall.
Oaks
Long Hill
0.0
20
Sugar and red maple saplings, both favored by deer, were conspicuously absent from all
study plots in Shelton with the exception of one red maple growing inside the deer fence
at Eklund Garden. Because sugar maples saplings are highly shade tolerant, this tree
would normally be expected to become the dominant tree throughout much of Southern
New England, along with beech. Sugar maple does not grow well on dry hilltops and
therefore was not expected or found at the Eklund Garden plots. Red maples are the most
common tree in Connecticut, able to grow in both swamps and dry areas, and although
red maple saplings are less shade tolerant than sugar maple, its complete absence is
indicative of excessive browsing.
Maples
Sugar Maple
Red Maple
Eklund (inside
deer fence)
NA
1
Figure 8: Browse line along a line of maples at Long Hill. Maple and oak seedlings are unable to
survive in this location due to the browsing pressure.
Other tree species were also severely impacted throughout the study plots. At Eklund
Garden, there were ten healthy white pine saplings in the sheltered study plot compared
with five in the adjacent plot outside the deer fence. Those five pines were heavily
damaged by deer browsing. Very few saplings of birch, black cherry, ash, and hickory
were observed throughout the study areas. The only tree species that appeared to be
21
reproducing successfully was American beech in the Long Hill area. However, many of
the mature beech trees throughout the study areas showed signs of beech bark disease,
which ultimately kills the main stem of the tree and causes the tree roots to form clonal
shoots that masquerade as saplings. These clones grow for some time until they too are
killed by beech bark disease. Therefore, it is not clear to what extent the beech trees are
actually reproducing successfully, or simply showing symptoms of beech bark disease.
Moreover, even beech trees show signs of heavy winter browsing, although they provide
little nourishment and are considered a starvation food.
Watershed Impacts: In 2013, the Aquarion Water Company began controlled hunts
on their Shelton properties, stating, Overbrowsing by deer continues to impact tree
regeneration resulting in significant loss of vegetation and increased potential for
erosion and nutrient releases on the watersheds. These conditions adversely impact the
quality of the water supplies.8 Adverse impacts to water bodies such as the Far Mill
River and Hope Lake may be occurring as well.
Landscaping Damage: The Shelton Deer Committee did not have the resources to
survey Shelton residents regarding landscaping damage, but based on conversations it
appears anecdotally that many residents are experiencing increased landscaping damage,
bolder deer (including deer that do not leave when they see people), and are increasingly
taking measures in response. These measures range from abandoning certain plantings
that deer favor (e.g. hostas), using deer repellent sprays, and installing deer fencing,
especially around vegetable gardens or sections of a yard. The practice of encircling an
entire property with deer fencing, common in some communities to the west such as
Redding or Wilton, is still rare in Shelton.
Shelton maintains two community gardens where residents can lease plots to grow
vegetables. Both gardens are protected by deer fencing, and plot holders often note they
cannot grow vegetables in their own yards because of the deer.
22
The degree of landscaping damage reported by residents varies widely, from residents
who say they are lucky and have never had a problem, to people who routinely see
multiple deer in their yards (at times these deer refuse to leave) and are experiencing
severe damage to plantings. Most people seem to be experiencing moderate but
increasing damage. Disparities in the level of landscaping damage across Shelton is
likely due in part to the habit of deer following the same route every day. Properties
along that route will experience more damage than other properties. Properties located
near severely overbrowsed woodlands may also experience increased landscaping
damage because the food sources in the forest have been depleted.
Figure 9: Deer fencing like this one in Redding has become common in parts of Fairfield County.
The protected private property on the left is regenerating.
Residential tolerance of deer in the backyard in Shelton varies widely. Some residents do
not mind damage to plantings, even if it is severe, because they enjoy seeing deer. Most
residents do not appear to mind a minor level of landscaping damage and, as long as
damage is limited, these residents enjoy seeing deer on their property. However, once
deer begin to inflict significant sustained damage on residential properties, opinions about
deer and deer control often shift quite rapidly, with calls for someone to do something.
This has occurred to many Shelton residents over the past five years.
Costs can be substantial. The Fairfield County Municipal Deer Management Alliance
commissioned a study in 2010 to study the economic impacts of deer, in which the
average Shelton homeowner was estimated to have suffered $402 per year in losses due
to deer browse on landscaping, for a total of nearly $4,000,000 per year to Shelton
residents.11 This was based on the average costs to single family homeowners throughout
23
Fairfield County ($804) multiplied by a factor of 0.5 to adjust for median household
income. The study may overstate current costs because deer impacts have only recently
become widespread in Shelton, and many residents have not yet resorted to the costly use
of deer repellents or installed deer fencing. Such measures are likely to become
increasingly common in the absence of deer control.
cases are reported nationwide.14 If this is true in Shelton, then the real number of cases is
closer to 290 per year. The costs of treating Lyme Disease vary widely depending on
whether the disease is caught early, properly diagnosed, and is successfully treated with
antibiotics. When a proper diagnosis is missed, Lyme Disease can progress into more
serious cases of arthritis, palsy, or other conditions, for which extensive tests and
treatments may ensue for years at considerable costs.
In the economic report commissioned by the Fairfield County Municipal Deer
Management Alliance in 2010, a figure of $10,652 was used as the average cost to treat a
case of Lyme Disease. This number is based on a 2006 study that found the average
Lyme Disease case cost $2,970 in direct medical costs and $5,202 in indirect medical
costs, nonmedical costs, and productivity losses. Using the 2006 cost estimates with the
2013 estimate for Lyme Disease cases in Shelton (290) gives a total cost of $3,089,080
per year. However, the authors of the study did note that costs had gone down during the
study period as patients and the medical community became more aware of Lyme
Disease.15
Emergent tick-borne illnesses include anaplasmosis, babesiosis, and the more rare
Powassan virus, which is similar to equine encephalitis and may be fatal. We have no
data regarding the potential impacts of these diseases on Shelton residents.
25
The devices can be somewhat effective in reducing tick populations, but are
expensive, and do nothing to address other problems associated with over-abundant
deer such as damage to watersheds and landscaping.
5. Fencing and deterrents. Deer fencing can be very effective at excluding deer from
yards and gardens. It can also be used in small woodland areas to protect sensitive
plants or seedlings. It is not effective in protecting against ticks or Lyme Disease
unless the fenced areas is several acres because ticks are easily transported by birds
and mice into the fenced area. Although fencing is costly and can be time-consuming
to install and maintain, residents in western Fairfield County often protect their
properties with it. Another method commonly used in Fairfield County is the
application of deterrent horticultural sprays, such as Bobbex. These sprays may be
very effective if applied frequently, but are costly. Deterrents may lose effectiveness
if deer are starving, an issue most likely to occur with winter shrubbery.
6. Programs to match hunters with property owners. Because most property is
privately owned in Connecticut, several local communities have created programs to
match willing property owners with hunters. Some of these programs were
implemented by private citizens rather than government agencies, such as the
BeSafeRedding and BeSafeNewtown programs, but municipalities can also maintain
matching lists or assist with private efforts. Outreach efforts consist of contacting
property owners and offering educational information including state hunting
regulations and safety, special crop damage permits for farmers, the ability for
property owners to set their own rules, and limits on liability to the landowner. If the
owner is interesting in allow hunters to access the property, they are connected with
hunters. These hunters can be previously screened.
27
28
29
from hunters who prefer a higher deer population for their sport. Due to the high cost
and fear of controversy, Greenwich and Redding are the only Fairfield County towns
in which professionals have been employed to cull deer.
31
SECTION 5: RECOMMENDATIONS
The City of Shelton should begin to implement a deer control program immediately,
starting with the creation of a Deer Management Committee. A delayed response will
only worsen the problem and make it much more difficult to address in the future.
The primary objective at this time should be to reduce the deer population to a
sustainable level at which the forest understory can provide sufficient natural forage and
deer are not forced to inhabit roadsides and yards to find food. Deer management should
lead to fewer problems with landscaping damage, deer-vehicle strikes, and possibly
modest reductions in Lyme Disease. Ecological benefits would include improved water
quality, habitat preservation for certain species of songbirds, and cover for amphibians.
This objective will be much easier to achieve for those natural areas where understory
plants persist because the existing plants can rebound quickly. In areas that have already
been severely degraded, additional measures may be necessary to reestablish a healthy
forest understory, such as opening up the canopy to let in more light.
Recreational hunting is a cost-effective management technique which has been used
successfully by a number of municipalities in Fairfield County, with a resulting drop in
deer/vehicle strikes and landscaping damage. Shelton should introduce a hunting program
on city open space properties in an incremental fashion, starting with bowhunting on a
small number of suitable properties.
Note that full control of Lyme Disease should not be expected unless the deer population
is brought down to a very low level of 8-12 deer per square mile, which requires
professional culling at a substantial cost. The Deer Committee does not recommend
professional culling at this time. However, city leaders and residents should be aware that
this option is currently the most effective method available for control of tick-borne
diseases.
Full List of Recommendations:
1. Create a "Deer Management Committee" to implement a deer control program (the
current Ad Hoc Deer Committee would be disbanded). The Deer Management
Committee would work out the logistics and details of the remaining recommendations.
2. Open a small number of suitable City open space properties to bowhunting by special
permit only ("controlled hunt") subject to review by the Conservation Commission and
approval by the Board of Aldermen. Applicants for special hunting permits should be
subject to background checks, references, and interviews, with preference given to
Shelton residents.
3. Establish rules for controlled hunts regarding where and how the hunts will be carried
out, such as the minimum distance from trails or property lines, approval of tree stand
locations, and days when hunting is allowed.
4. Expand the areas open to hunting over time, subject to review by the Conservation
Commission and approval by the Board of Aldermen.
32
Leonard Lee Rue, III, The World of the White-tailed Deer, 1962.
CDC Fact Sheet, Anaplasmosis, www.cdc.gov/anaplasmosis
3
CDC Fact Sheet, Babesiosis, www.cdc.gov/parasites/babesiosis
4
Andreas Keller, et. al., New insights into the Tyrolean Icemans origin and phenotype as inferred by
whole-genome sequencing, Nature Communications, February 2012.
5
Kantor FS. Disarming Lyme Disease, Scientific Am., Sept. 1994
6
Howard Kilpatrick and Andrew LaBonte, Managing Urban Deer in Connecticut, Second Edition, 2007.
7
Kirby Stafford, Tick Management Handbook, Bulletin 1010, The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment
Station.
8
Letter from Stephen Stamos, Aquarion Water Company, to Shelton Mayor Mark Lauretti, dated October
4, 2013.
9
Peter Arno and Deborah Viola, New York Medical College, Economic Impact of Deer in Shelton, May
2010, sponsored by the Fairfield County Municipal Deer Management Alliance.
10
Pyrethrin Fact Shelton, National Pesticide Information Center, November 2014.
11
Peter Arno and Deborah Viola, New York Medical College, Economic Impact of Deer in Shelton, May
2010, sponsored by the Fairfield County Municipal Deer Management Alliance.
12
Managing Urban Deer in Connecticut, Connecticut DEEP Wildlife Division, 2007
13
CTPost, Your chances of hitting a deer in Connecticut, September 14, 2014.
14
CDC Fact Sheet, Lyme Disease: How many people get Lyme Disease?
www.cdc.gov/lyme/stats/humanCases.html.
2
15
Xinzhi Zhang et. al, Economic Impact of Lyme Disease. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006 April.
16
33
APPENDIX A
Letter from the Conservation Commission to the Board of Aldermen
recommending the establishment of a deer committee
34
35
36
37