Point Reyes Light - March 10, 2005
National Seashore makes its case for non-native deer plan
By Jim Kravets
Fresh facts, old arguments, and bizarre dogma were presented and defended last Thursday in a public workshop hosted by the Point Reyes National Seashore inside the red barn in Bear Valley. The topic was the Park Service’s hotly-contested plan – made available last month – for what to do with more than 1,000 non-native deer living in the park.
The park’s 296-page draft Environmental Impact Statement and draft Non-Native Deer Management Plan offered five alternatives for addressing the increasing impact of the deer, which the Park Service says includes damaging the habitat of native species and competing for food with the park’s herds of reintroduced tule elk and native black-tailed deer.
National Seashore Supt. Don Neubacher said the Park Service’s preferred plan for dealing with the growing herds is total removal of the animals by year 2020 through a combination of shooting and contraception. In an effort to explain their choice, the National Seashore stocked the meeting with a panel of wildlife biologists and ecologists from both near and far.
Neubacher’s announcement alarmed many park visitors and animal welfare advocates who came out Thursday in support of the axis and fallow deer which – tame and photogenic – have been called a "a visitor highlight" and "an area treasure."
The Park Service’s proposed alternatives differ primarily in their approach to controlling the deer populations and in the desired future numbers of deer. One alternative calls for no action. Two of the alternatives call for controlling numbers of both species at a pre-determined level (350 axis and 350 fallow deer) using shooting alone or a combination of shooting and long-acting contraceptives. The final alternative calls for the eradication of both species by 2020 using shooting alone.
Audience asks: ‘Why now?’
If approved, the Park Service plans to begin implementing its final plan sometime in 2006. To this, some citizens have wondered: Why the rush? After all, the deer have been here for more than half a century.
"We’re now at a decision point about what we need to do or not do with the deer," Neubacher told the more than 100 members of the public at the meeting. "The deer are starting to leave the park. One was hit by a car last year in Woodacre. The big question is, do you allow [deer to continue spreading] over time?"
The Park Service estimates there are about 250 axis and 860 fallow deer in the park, and the numbers are growing fast, Neubacher said. "The reason the population is where it is today is because for more than a 20-year period ending in 1994 the park [culled] about 3,500 animals. If not, we’d now have 5,000 animals."
If the deer spread into other areas of the county, park officials said, controlling their numbers at that point would be far more difficult because of the various private and public land owners involved.
Fallow deer herds can expand at an annual rate of 11 percent, said park wildlife biologist and veterinarian Natalie Gates.
"The fallow herd will double in 6.5 years," she said. "Axis deer herds expand twice as fast at 22 percent per year. At that rate the herd doubles every three and a half years." Axis deer spread especially fast, she explained, because the females, without a defined "seasonal rut," are fertile year-round.
Park Service outlines ‘Potential impacts’
The draft plan states the park is principally concerned about the preservation of its native ecosystem, an ethic echoed often by park officials.
"Our mandate as a National Park is to perpetuate as many native species as possible," Neubacher told the audience. "We have 25 [protected] species including steelhead trout, coho salmon, red-legged frogs. We’ve got a lot to be responsible for."
Dr. Gates defined a non-native species as, "one which did not evolve with the ecosystem in which it is found," and she went on to underscore the seriousness of their impact.
"Forty-two species on the Federal Endangered Species list are on the list because of non-native species."
Despite being only one-third their size, Dr. Gates said, fallow deer effectively compete for food with the park’s much larger tule elk. Gates projected photographs showing fallow deer bucks sparring with tule elk bulls and winning. She also played a video clip from a Czech Republic study showing fallow deer strategically prodding elk from behind to displace them at a feeding station.
Dr. Gates referred to a study done by ecologist Gary Fellers which showed that even if the park maintained the fallow and axis herds at 350 animals each, the native black-tailed deer population would then be suppressed by 35 percent due to competition.
Park officials are also concerned the deer will spread disease. The park’s herd of tule elk in the Limantour area are currently free from Johne’s disease, an ultimately fatal diarrheal wasting disease. Dr. Gates estimates that about 10 percent of the non-native deer are infected with Johne’s and could infect the elk.
‘Contraception alone not feasible’
For those opposed to shooting the non-native deer, controlling the herd sizes through drug contraception alone seems like an appealing solution; except that it won’t work, park officials said. The available technology and current regulations make contraception alone unfeasible, according to officials.
A drug contraceptive effective for three to four years exists for fallow deer – it’s called SpayVac – but it hasn’t been approved by the FDA, Dr. Gates said.
"We could use SpayVac on the fallow deer, but the treatment would be considered ‘experimental,’" she said.
In experimental trials, she explained, the FDA requires that strict regulations be followed: the treated deer would all need to be collared and monitored year-round – a labor-intensive process involving a combination of helicopters, netguns, traps, or dartguns, all of which can result in injuries to animals as well as to field staff. Which is more disruptive to the animal, culling or contraception?
"It’s a matter of opinion," Dr. Gates said.
Using statistical models, Dr. Tom Hobbs, an ecologist from Colorado State University, went on to show that in order to keep the deer herds stable using 4-year-duration contraceptives alone, 80 percent of the females would have to be treated.
"That’s a heroic effort," Hobbs said, "and it’s simply not feasible outside of enclosed animal populations."
Gates added that in the future, if a lifetime drug contraceptive or "sterilant" for deer became available, the park would be very interested. Neubacher emphasized that the current plan is only a draft, and changes are possible up to and even during implementation if new technology becomes available.
Audience surprised by culling numbers
Some members of the audience – especially those who believed that keeping limited herds in the park would result in less killing than options which called for the eradication of all the animals – were surprised at the statistical projections of the number of deer killed in each of the options.
In option B, which maintains the herds at 350 animals each using shooting only, the park calculated that 3,050 animals would be shot by year 2020, and a total of 10,000 animals would be shot by year 2065. In option C, which uses a combination of drug contraception and shooting to maintain the same size herds, 1,000 animals would be shot by year 2020, and 4,000 animals would be shot by year 2065. In option D, which uses shooting to remove both herds by year 2020, some 2,200 animals would be killed. In option E, the park’s preferred option which uses both drug contraception and shooting to remove all the deer, 1,350 deer would be killed; that’s the lowest number of animals killed except for option A where no animals are killed and their numbers increase unchecked.
The park also calculated the estimated cost for each alternative. Option B would cost $8.5 million; option C would cost $13 million; option D would cost $3.8 million; option E would cost $3.5 million; and option A, the "no action" option, would still cost $8.5 million because the animals would be monitored indefinitely. Supt. Neubacher went on to say that the cost works out to be $300 for each animal shot, and $3,000 for each animal treated with contraceptives. The money for all the options would come almost entirely from federal sources, he said.
Some complain meeting ‘too controlled’
Perhaps anticipating friction, the National Seashore engaged the services of professional moderator Steve Christiano to facilitate the meeting. Christiano, a Fairfax resident, was a past director of the Headlands Institute, a non-profit environmental education organization.
"I run a lot of public meetings," he said by way of introduction. "And this is a charged one. Respect and compassion are the two ground rules tonight."
Just before Christiano’s call for sanity, a man calling himself "Peter," commandeered the floor and invoked the unlikely trio of Jesus, exotic deer, and Koko the Gorilla in a shouted plea for what particular end many weren’t sure. Peter was helped to "take it outside" by Chief Interpretive Ranger John Dell’Osso. It would not be the last breach of Christiano’s meeting protocol Thursday evening.
Those in attendance were asked to write their questions on notecards which would be read aloud by Christiano and answered by the panel.
"Has the park contacted animal welfare organizations that could help pay for the otherwise cost-prohibitive contraceptive program?" the panel was asked.
Neubacher responded, "When we did the tule elk contraception program, which cost $300,000, the total grants that came in were less than five percent. A number of groups did step forward, and we were grateful for their contributions. But it was tough to get funds and ultimately they weren’t substantial."
Another question for the panel, "Is it prudent to eradicate the deer when a large majority of the public want to see them here?"
"That’s why we’re going through a public process," Neubacher said. "We’re here to get comments. And right now public-opinion is mixed."
Some West Marin residents, favoring spirited, open-forum-style meetings, were caught off-guard by the formal mechanism of a National Park Service workshop.
"This is not a public meeting! It’s all so managed," shouted Judy Molyneaux of Bolinas from the back of the room. "I only hear [members of the panel] speak. I get the sense of presentation, not public input. It’s so sanitized. It’s not a democratic process. People need to be able to speak their mind," she said, drawing applause. "Let’s take a vote right now!"
The panel’s response came from Dr. Reginald Barrett, a professor of wildlife management at UC Berkeley who has studied deer and elk at the Seashore since 1978.
"You have the right to make your opinions. But this is a National Park, and therefore the process is established by Congress. The game is already structured to decide how much weight you give local opinions and how much weight you give the rest of the country. [Neubacher] comes up with the plan, and you have the right to criticize that."
Dr. Gates added, "We don’t just want your comments. We need to include them in the administrative record, and we’re required by law to respond to all those comments in choosing the final plan. That’s more effective than people just shouting out at once in a room."
Don’t underestimate the effectiveness of the park’s process, Neubacher said after the meeting. In an open-forum-type meeting charged with passionate polemicizing, the not-so-vocal are at a disadvantage and what’s more, substantive comments often evaporate by meeting’s end, he said.
National Seashore will be held accountable
Neubacher said the Park Service’s format ensured that every concern would be captured, addressed and recorded. People with concerns who declined to fill out a question card or who had follow-up questions could voice their thoughts after the presentation when the meeting divided into smaller groups. All questions asked in the groups were recorded by the Park Service.
"You have to get all the opinions," he said. "You can’t just take a poll tonight and base your decision on that because there are a lot of ranchers here and they didn’t speak up. You don’t want just the vocals to carry the tide. To a certain extent that why it’s best to wait the 60 days, gather all the public opinion, and analyze it."
Some citizens were sufficiently put off by the meeting format to stay away altogether.
"It wasn’t a forum, it was a presentation," said Dr. Elliot Katz, President of In Defense of Animals, the national nonprofit animal protection organization based in Mill Valley. "The [Park Service] deliberately created this crisis. They could have used contraceptives before when the herds were smaller. But they waited until it was too late so that there would be only one, inexpensive option: sharpshooters. They stacked the deck in terms of killing. But I do not believe there is an eminent crisis right now. Neither the elk nor the deer are underweight. There’s still time to pursue non-killing options."
Those not at the meeting have until April 8 to submit additional comments. The Park Service must address all concerns in its final Environmental Impact Statement and deer management plan to be completed by winter of this year, Neubacher said. The final plan then needs approval from National Park Service Pacific West Regional Director John Jarvis.
Copies of the draft reports are online at, <www.nps.gov/pore/home_mngmntdocs_exoticdeer_deis.htm>
Those wanting to submit written comments on the reports can mail them to Superintendent, Point Reyes National Seashore, Point Reyes Station, 94956, Attn: Non-Native Deer Management Plan, or email <ann_nelson@nps.gov>. To be considered, comments must be postmarked or transmitted no later than April 8.
Sidebar history
The deer have been fixtures of the area since 1948 when the San Francisco Zoo donated fallow and axis deer to Doc Ottinger, who created a hunting club on his ranch at the foot of Mount Vision. With the creation of the National Seashore in 1962, hunting stopped and the two deer herds swelled.
Fallow deer, a species native to Asia Minor, North Africa, and the Mediterranean, increased from 29 introduced animals to a herd of 523 by 1977. Fallow deer have palmated antlers like a moose and a coat that varies from white to brown to black.
Axis deer, a species native to India, Nepal, and Sri Lanka, increased from eight animals to a herd of 461 in 1976. Axis deer have a brown-and-white spotted coat, and have been spotted grazing everywhere from the Olema Valley to the Nicasio Reservoir.
With the guidance of the Citizens Advisory Commission to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Point Reyes National Seashore, the Park Service in 1973 enacted an informal deer management plan.
Under that plan, the park kept the herds in check with a program of regular culling. Between 1968 and 1994 rangers killed 1,388 axis deer and 1,873 fallow deer – occasionally brutally – to the chagrin of some West Marin residents. Some of the carcasses were donated to food kitchens like St. Anthony Farms in Sonoma and San Quentin State Penitentiary, while many carcasses were left to decompose where they fell.
However, with the arrival of Supt. Don Neubacher in 1994, the informal management plan was suspended, and today the Park Service estimates there are about 250 axis and 860 fallow deer in the park.
Point Reyes Light Cover | News | Coastal Traveler