Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Town split on deer counting; committee asks for RFP while proposing tick‑tube contingency
Summary
Wildlife committee proposed an RFP for a repeatable deer‑count survey to create a baseline for future interventions; DEC/land management staff urged focusing on impacts, and board members were divided between immediate population control and commissioning scientific counts. Budget: $40,000 line item could fund priority‑area survey (townwide up to ~$100,000).
Tom Flyte and the wildlife committee presented two options to the board: pursue an RFP for a repeatable baseline deer‑count survey or adopt an impact‑based management approach that measures vehicle collisions, vegetation impacts and tick metrics. Tom said the choice before the board was whether to "move forward with an RFP to undertake a deer count" or to pursue alternatives.
Andy (land management/DEC liaison) cautioned that state guidance recommends focusing community plans on "clearly defined and measurable goals" and that setting a single density target for deer is often not useful. He cited past local counts — a 2006 estimate of roughly 3,300 deer by a volunteer group and an infrared flyover in 2013 that estimated 877 deer — and noted those figures are inconsistent with other local data such as vehicle‑collision records.
The committee recommended a distance‑sampling spotlight survey with transects and recorded observation angles, yielding density estimates with confidence intervals, hotspot mapping and repeatable methodology. The committee said a priority‑area survey could be done in the $35,000–$40,000 range (the town has $40,000 in the 2026 budget for tick/deer work); a full townwide survey could cost up to $100,000 or more.
Tom outlined timing constraints: the optimal survey window is late September (after the early antler‑drop window) into early October before regular hunting season begins. He also proposed priority transects in residential/woodland interface areas including Springs, Lands End, Clearwater, Hog Creek, Northwest Woods, Nepeake and Montauk.
As a contingency, the committee proposed a lower‑cost RFP for deployment of permethrin‑coated "tick tubes" (treated cotton that mice bring to nests), estimating roughly $10,000 could treat about 50 acres; the committee noted tick tubes target black‑legged ticks and require certified applicators for public deployment.
Board views diverged. Several members said the town already has sufficient evidence of overabundant deer (citations in the discussion: roughly 500 vehicle collisions per year) and urged moving toward active population control options that could include curated hunting/harvest programs or professional services that vet hunters and obtain permits. Other members favored a robust baseline so that interventions can be measured for effectiveness and to avoid undertaking costly interventions without clear outcome data. Members asked staff to return with two‑scope RFP language (priority‑area and townwide), cost estimates, and information on a professional hunter‑matchmaking program (John Roschetta) as a potential staged approach.
What's next: staff will draft an RFP with optional scopes and costs, seek additional technical input (including a possible briefing by a professional program such as Roschetta's), and clarify multiyear budget implications before the board commits to townwide survey funding.
