1. The Overpopulation of White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus):
How Deer Disrupt Ecological Communities in the Absence of Effective Wildlife Management
Introduction:
Sustainability has emerged as a goal for human society, with communities of people rising to address the problems
of such issues as climate change, deforestation, energy consumption, materialism, and waste management.
Colleges and universities have played a major role in educating the public about the need for policy change and
have taken it upon themselves to figure out how to conquer sustainability. Commonly, the assumption is that
greater technological gains are needed, and accordingly, many leaders of science are focused intently on mastering
materials use and energy efficiency in their policy change recommendations. This is most certainly a good thing.
However, amid the fervor for human ingenuity, certain aspects of sustainability have been overlooked.
Stewardship of the land we live on is an important part of securing an environmentally-friendly future. Whether
for intrinsic or utilitarian purposes, care and attention must be paid to the condition of the landscape. As
university faculty and administration strive to educate and innovate, they should also be partial to the state of the
immediate environment.
Likewise, Binghamton University, State University of New York (SUNY) has pledged to pursue sustainability
through increased funding toward state-of-the-art research facilities for the broad fields of information and
technology, and materials use and energy efficiency. The Engineering and Science Building “is only the third in
the SUNY system to achieve LEED Platinum status. In 2011, The Engineering News Record named the building
its top “Green Project of the Year in the New York Region” in its annual competition.” (“Engineering and Science
Building Earns LEED Platinum Certification”). These buildings will be located within sight of a large wildlife
sanctuary adjacent to campus. The Nature Preserve is a secondary growth eastern deciduous forest that is valuable
to the institution in a number of ways, including leisure, research, and environmental health. Unfortunately for the
institution, its resident White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus viginianus) population has grown beyond the environmental
carrying capacity, causing great harm to the sanctuary through over-browsing. This problem has yet to be
remedied by the institution.
Although Binghamton University’s environmental policy heralds an era of sustainability (“Environmental
Policy”), SUNY Officials, campus administration, and many faculty members collectively appear to be more
concerned about techno-fixes and efficiency than the unsustainable methods of institution land stewardship. This
is somewhat hypocritical. In the effort to increase the sustainability of Binghamton University, I urge the
administration to consider proper land stewardship alongside efficiency as viable policy responses to affect a more
sustainable community. For by continuing to ignore the problems we face in the Nature Preserve, it becomes
obvious that the quest for sustainability is only a façade. If Binghamton University is to take sustainability
seriously, then we need to acknowledge the connection that our causal actions and inactions have to human-
induced effects on the environment.
In this paper, I will use the case study of the Nature Preserve’s resident deer to demonstrate the inadequate policy
response given to environmental problems at Binghamton University. History, scientific data, and public opinion
are all relevant to this analysis, as the problem we face arose and manifested itself in very complicated ways. In
Section I, I revisit the history of North American forests, teasing out the reasons for deer over-abundance, and our
society’s attitude toward it, from the tangled origins of American society. Then I move on to address certain
ecological principles and how they relate to the case study in Section II. Section III details past, present, and

2. potential future management practices, including the differences in public opinion on policy decisions and the
reasons for administrative inaction, and in Section IV, I evaluate the results of a survey of public opinion and
knowledge. I do this to address the content of Section III, highlighting the inappropriateness of assumption in the
policy-making process. Finally, in Section V, I use the information presented to voice my personal opinions and
concluding recommendations concerning the deer issue and how it has been handled by key personnel. As we
proceed, it should remain clear that my ultimate concern is for the future of sustainability at Binghamton
University, which seems to be hindered by apathetic leadership in the policy-making process.
Section I: History Revisited and the American Perspective
The steady state of North American forests appears very different today than before the conquest of the New
World by European imperialists. Land-clearing and over-hunting by a burgeoning population of colonial settlers
drove the natural wilderness and its inhabitants from the east thereafter. Due to the 19th
century conservation
movement and 20th
century abandonment of agricultural land, some species of plants, animals, and indeed some
entire ecological community types have made a resurgence in eastern deciduous forests. Notably, the White-
Tailed Deer has rebounded to record abundance in the east, coinciding with human mass disenfranchisement with
the pastime of hunting.
This dichotomy has been largely responsible for an evolutionary advantage enjoyed by deer; incidence of deer
overabundance has emerged as a prevalent ailment to forest communities due to an increase in viable habitat and
absence of natural predators. “Of America’s roughly thirty million deer, just under five million are mule deer or
blacktails. All the rest are whitetails” (Cambronne, 7). Like many other environmental plagues, the regional
White-tailed Deer (hereafter deer) over-abundance issue is one that has resulted from human disturbance of
ecological communities.
In order to gain perspective as to why this has occurred, we must return to the founding of our society and the
disappearance of wilderness from the eastern forest. In this section, I will briefly recount the history of the
American dream. I hope to show how our societal goals have framed our relationship with deer. Even through the
cultural transformations of time, we have maintained a similar perspective on environmental issues
Pre-colonial America was a place of ecological balance. The ebb and flow of natural processes ruled the
landscape, allowing the abundance of each species to oscillate around the carrying capacity. This included the
mainly hunter-gatherer societies of Native Americans. Although it is clear that natives manipulated the landscape
with small-scale farming and fire, their ability and desire to deconstruct the environmental communities present
was negligible to that of the white settlers from Europe. Natives were reliant on the wildlife present in the forest
for their survival, and in a way, they were part of the landscape themselves. Respect for the land and its perpetual
health was the central principle around which their society was centered.
In contrast to the hunter-gatherer society of natives, European society was based on the agriculture of plants and
animals. Subsistence in the most basic sense depended on the ability to manipulate and disturb the landscape
effectively. Therefore, it is no surprise that their arrival on the eastern shores of North America was immediately
followed by rapid deforestation of the continent’s largest forest. Throughout the next two hundred years, as the
population of Europeans grew, fragmentation and disturbance of forests enabled the foundation of a growing
American society (Sterba, 25).
Within this society were prejudices that enabled the destruction of the previous steady state. It was religious
oppression that brought the colonists to the New World and, ironically, it was religious intolerance that drove them

3. to ignore the continent’s inhabitants. In fact, the relationship between settlers and natives deteriorated quickly due
to the lack of mutual respect. “Demonizing the landscape and its occupants helped justify conquest and
destruction, which was the first step in the creation of a new Eden” (Sterba, 22). Natives were thought of as
savages by colonists because they were incapable of destroying the landscape and plundering its abundant natural
resources. Further, the dangerous wilderness was unnerving to settlers. Apex predators – such as wolves and
mountain lions – were purposefully eradicated for human and livestock safety. Other large mammals were later
extirpated incidentally. Overall, taming the wilderness was necessary in constructing an agricultural utopia that
was free of oppression (except for oppression of slaves, women, and natives; but we won’t get into that), their god-
given right.
However, though settlers negatively viewed the natural environment, there was some utility in the forest for this
new American culture. Colonists depended on the forest for unrefined products and natural resources. Trees were
harvested for timber, firewood, and resin, certain animals for fur, leather, or wax, and countless animals for food.
These resources built towns, ships, and fueled everything from people’s fireplaces to the colonial economy. And
yet, respect for the environment remained lacking because of the relative abundance of these resources. It was
unfathomable that natural resources could become scarce due to deforestation and population explosion (Sterba,
89; Andrus 2014).
Nineteenth century America was a different place than early colonial America. Technology was more advanced
and radical changes in culture were underway. The population was certainly much larger and had expanded west
past the Appalachian Mountains. “By 1850, the U.S. population had grown to 23.3 million, and wood supplied 90
percent of the nation’s energy needs” (Sterba, 29). But more importantly, the assault on forests had been occurring
for over two hundred years, allowing a much greater proportion of the landscape to become fragmented and tamed
for the purpose of agriculture. The landscape of that time was exhausted of unrefined resources and lacked the
complexity of the old growth forest that used to blanket the eastern half of the United States. For most forest-
dwelling animals, this was unfavorable. Disappearance of habitat, coupled with over-exploitation of natural
resources, resulted in the rapid decline in most wildlife populations. White-tailed deer were no exception. In this
way, it was evident that the initial colonial attitude toward the environment was preserved through early America,
though the society was progressive in other ways.
By mid-century and beyond, many people in the east began to move from the northeastern countryside. Factory
work and industry was booming, encouraging a great proportion of citizens to abandon their subsistence lives and
embrace the free labor capitalist mantra in cities. Additionally, the settlement of the mid-west and great plains
regions gave incentive for farmers to relocate to more fertile soils with longer growing seasons. Much farmland in
the east was abandoned during this time, left to become untamed with brambles, thickets, and woods. Secondary
succession transformed the abandoned colonial fields into forests, viable habitat for wildlife. Loggers were
focused elsewhere, in the virgin forests of the southeast and great lakes regions. Economically-oriented people
paid no mind to the monumental re-seeding of a second generation forest (Sterba, 47).
Around the same time, the crescendo of environmental destruction and society’s general ambivalence to it helped
to inspire the transcendentalism and conservation movements. In both spiritual and practical senses, many wealthy
Americans were ready to address the general disrepair that society and the American wild had fallen into. These
cultural movements, coupled with the incidental increase in wildlife habitat, aided the reappearance of many
extirpated species in the east (Sterba, 90). Conservation was particularly relevant to this societal shift because of
its political implications. Some environmentalists advocated for environmental protection for intrinsic motives and
were called preservationists, whereas others were more utilitarian and were called conservationists (“Policy

4. Making Framework”, 3). More specifically, historical giants such as John Muir and Theodore Roosevelt
advocated for similar policy responses, but for different reasons entirely (Andrus 2014).
The utilitarian perspective was more widely accepted due to society’s predominant attitude toward the natural
world, and accordingly, advocates for the preservation of large mammals were generally avid hunters, pursuing
conservation policy to protect public access to abundant game species (Sterba, 96). The North American model of
wildlife management was thus born. It was “a scheme to give all the wildlife to all the people, so that each person
would, in theory, have a vested interest in looking after it … The model evolved from Greek and Roman ideas that
some things in the natural world should not be owned” (Sterba, 94). In other words, it was the duty of the
government to protect the commons so that citizens could have equal access. This described the flavor of national
environmental policy in response to ecological distress until the mid-twentieth century, when the intrinsically-
oriented counterculture berated policy-makers on their lackluster understanding of ecological principles.
Coinciding this drawn-out movement was an increase in the size of the middle class. Depression-era public
welfare programs and the flourishing post-war economy uplifted Americans from poverty, allowing many people
to economically justify luxury. The affluent working class wanted to raise their families away from the populous
city centers. However, instead of a return to agrarian society, the 1950s efflux of populations out of cities
established communities with smaller estates and larger houses. The appeal was a more comfortable life, free of
city stressors, but still close enough so that a daily commute was possible. This required a re-fragmentation of the
landscape. Suburban sprawl was the 20th
century American dream, manifesting in miles of ecological disturbance
radiating outward from every municipality and metropolis. And if we fast-forward through to the present, these
suburbs would grow and grow, connecting with each other all along the eastern seaboard to create a vast expanse
of ecological fragmentation and disturbance.
So how do deer fit into these societal transformations? How have they responded to the past century of
environmental policy?
Deer repopulation was initially sponsored by wildlife biologists and their translocation schemes (Cambronne, 8),
but it became clear very quickly that they would not need to remain intimately involved. The proactive phase of
deer conservation was short-lived and was followed by an explosion of deer abundance in many regions (Sterba,
98). Deer themselves have been mostly responsible for quickly rebounding in abundance and repopulating distant
areas of extirpation. Through no fault of their own, they have been very effective at colonization, most likely due
to a coincidental predisposition for mild disturbance, a generalist herbivore palette, and an ability to be highly
mobile (Cambronne, 10-11, 19). This population growth rate was encouraged by environmental policies such as
the “Buck Law”, which was a hunting regulation only allowing the annual harvest of male deer. By this design,
even though there were less males, the remaining bucks could mate with all the spared females, resulting in more
deer (Sterba, 100).
The coincidence of suburbs and deer abundance meant that deer began to appear in suburban communities almost
immediately, quickly finding them to be extremely favorable. “Whitetails are an edge species; that is, they flourish
where one type of vegetation ends and another begins” (Sterba, 89). Likewise, suburban sprawl is only comprised
of edges, allowing ample bedding, watering, and hiding places, but also open areas to run and forage in.
Additionally, the absence of hunters and natural predators in these residential areas culminated in an ecological
haven for deer.
As aforementioned, suburban areas grew in size as a greater proportion of Americans sought the luxuries of a
suburban life. Those wildlife species that were well-suited to it also became more abundant until finally, in the
latter half of the twentieth century, it became evident that deer were perhaps too abundant in some areas. This

5. illustrated a marked change in the attitudes of Americans toward deer. “When they were scarce, whitetails were
seen almost universally as elegant creatures, a thrill to watch leaping a fence, tail high. As their numbers grew,
perceptions changed. They became nuisances, even menaces” (Sterba, 87). Deer browsing in areas of high density
had incurred massive damages to cropland, parks, and private landscaping, posed a public health threat in the form
of Lyme’s Disease and vehicle collisions, and had played a part in the displacement of understory plants and
animals (Sterba, 88). In general, this is the picture that many people see today. An elegant creature was first
raised high on a pedestal and then subsequently dropped from favor. Of course, the deer had nothing to do with
this. The fluctuations of deer populations have all been caused by humans, their interactions with the landscape,
and the environmental policies enacted by culture, society, and the state.
This historical journey should tell us something about our relationship with the natural world. In the beginning,
there were too many resources to know what to do with, so we squandered them away in the process of
“improving” the landscape. This created scarcity and we scolded ourselves for unwise use during the transitional
period, all the while only justifying environmental policies so that we could preserve our right to consume
resources. Today, the hurrying suburban commuter dodges a deer or two each morning, cursing as he careens past.
In summary, we are ever at odds with the environment. Though American society has reorganized itself many
times through the avenues of technological advancement, affluence, and population increase, this one original
perspective remains. It is clear from our history that we do not fully understand or appreciate the intricacies of the
natural world. Therefore, we should not be surprised when environmental problems persist.
Section II: A Policy Analysis of the Binghamton University
Nature Preserve Forested Lands and its Deer Population
Populations of white-tailed deer breaching one-hundred per square mile far exceed the carrying capacity of a
forest. That is, excessive herbivory by selective browsers is wildly unhealthy for the ecological community and is
unsustainable. In the following section, I will use scientific evidence to support my claim that high deer density
has unfavorable implications on native vegetation and understory residents. The cited articles and expert opinions
serve to solidly justify human interventional in general. In due course, I will show the important role that forested
landscapes traditionally play in human society’s sustainability and how deer overabundance erodes this capacity.
The result of deer overabundance in many forest communities, including the Binghamton University Nature
Preserve, has been the slow demise and disappearance of many native species of plants and animals, followed by
the ruinous invasion of non-native species, deterioration of forest structural complexity, and the capacity of the
forest to provide vital ecosystem services.
The Binghamton University Nature Preserve
The story at Binghamton University begins with a little bit of history. The previous owner of the landscape was a
farmer and he used the land for varied row cropping and grazing purposes. This made purchase ideal for campus
development because it was already cleared of trees in certain places, yet had forested lands over the rest. Today,
the campus remains situated in Vestal, NY on roughly 930 acres of forested land, some of which has been annexed
since the initial purchase. Much of it is the developed campus community that boasts over a hundred buildings,
but about 190 acres have been set aside as an environmental sanctuary (“About the University”).
Echoing agricultural land abandonment that was discussed in Section I, the undeveloped portions of the farm were
left alone to undergo vegetative succession in what is now called the Nature Preserve. This has resulted in a
relatively mature secondary growth forest on the property, which is valued intrinsically and instrumentally by the

6. university. Suburban sprawl adjacent to the campus has accompanied the development at BU, and as the old
agricultural lands have become more edged, deer have colonized the landscape.
Dylan Horvath, Steward of Natural Areas, is charged with management of the Nature Preserve and is
understandably attuned to the subtle changes in the campus environment. He and other ecological experts have
collectively determined that the Nature Preserve is overrun with deer, concluding that the preserve has acted as a
refuge for deer for the past half-century, allowing their abundance to grow past and remain above the social and
ecological carrying capacity. This has caused the social and environmental value of the Preserve and surrounding
residential areas to diminish.
Ecological Analysis
This fact became evident to resident ecologists with the appearance of a consumption or “browse” line in the forest
understory. A browse line is an obvious visible change in vegetation density that is caused by excessive herbivory.
In the case of high deer density, the line appears uniformly at about two meters above the forest floor, allowing one
to peer through the understory in a very unnatural capacity. Most herbaceous and woody plants are denuded and
defoliated within reach of the deer, excepting unpalatable varieties, resulting in the bare soil surface and branches
that are seen in the Nature Preserve understory. It is generally only found within the interior of a forest due to an
herbivore’s healthy wariness of human predation. In such cases, a “green curtain” exists near forest edges – the
term green curtain means absence of defoliation around the forest perimeter. Accordingly, the disappearance of
the Nature Preserve green curtain within the past decade has prominently signified the overabundance of deer
(Horvath, 2014), as the absence of predation has allowed deer to become increasingly present and bold in the forest
community (Masse and Cote, 2011). They have responded by eating their way through the entirety of the
reachable understory vegetation to the forest edges (Andrus, 2014).
Ecologists commonly use such qualitative measures as the existence of defoliation patterns to visually assess
natural areas for deer pressure. These determinations can and should be trusted due to the high correlation of
woody plant herbivory to deer abundance in experimental study (Rossell et al. 2007; Rooney 2008; Russell and
Fowler 2004; Bressette and Beck 2012). Thus, the browse line and green curtain are such telling devices because
they exhibit the unilateral defoliation and/or denuding of woody plants within the physical reach of the herbivore.
Environmental professionals have qualitatively evaluated deer pressure further by gauging the abundance of
certain understory species. This has been accomplished by their frequent presence in the Nature Preserve,
allowing ecologists to notice the relative decline in species abundance. Native sentinel species have therefore been
used as environmental assessment tools (Blossey, 2014). To put this another way, invasive species displacement
of native flora has been used as a symptom of “vegetation degradation in deer-impacted forests” (Rawinski, 22).
Their findings are supplemented with experimental conclusions in the following paragraphs.
Professor John Titus discontinued his Population Ecology lecture on forest wildflowers because there simply
weren’t any left to exemplify (Horvath 2014). This was clearly caused by selective deer browsing, with deer
density showing correlation with the abundance of flowers and forbs (Rossell et al. 2007). Flowers, which are
nutrient dense in comparison to other palatable forage, are typically some of the first vegetation to show threaten
extirpation (Rawinski, 24). It has also been shown in experimental study that the “cover by species with showy,
insect-pollinated flowers is 79 times greater in [deer] exclosures” (Rooney 2008), indicating the effect that deer
must have on angiosperms.
Professors Andrus and Titus have also expressed concern for the forest community’s trees. The low abundance of
saplings and seedlings has indicated that deer pressure greatly hinders the reproductive capacity of the forest.

7. Sapling herbivory with moderate deer pressure contributes to the perpetuation of trees in younger age classes.
Deer appear to prefer larger plants, indicating that they might be mainly responsible for preventing recruitment to
the canopy and to older age classes in general (Russell and Fowler 2004). This problem becomes worse with
heavy grazing pressure.
As depicted in Figure 1 from Bressette and Beck 2012, seedlings are highly susceptible to deer predation in
instances of high deer density. Deer will not stray from targeting seedlings or other less favorable woody browse
if
such vegetation is the most abundant or nutritionally favorable in the area. Further, their tendency to “nip”
vegetation as they pass, sampling palatability as they pass has potential to greatly defoliate at high deer densities
without even contributing to an individual deer’s nutrition (Andrus 2014, Horvath 2014). In Figure 1, seedlings in
the control plots showed much less probability of survival than the exclosure plots, indicating the impact that deer
have on resident vegetation (Bressette and Beck, 2012).
One might ask how and why deer have been able to sustain high densities in the Nature Preserve as the quality of
forage has decreased. In other words, how can deer maintain population levels above carrying capacity?
Shouldn’t their population fluctuate according to nutrition abundance or scarcity? This has been one basis by
which animal rights groups have disputed environmentally-justified animal nuisance culls. Ecologists have
answered these questions by conducting experiments demonstrating “the high plasticity of deer behavior ... The
strong association between alternative food sources and deer space use could be a mechanism enhancing winter
survival, and thus, maintaining high population densities in overbrowsed landscapes” (Masse and Cote, 2011).
Habitat selection appears to play a major role in providing ecological subsidies to woody browse when it is scarce.
Daily movement into and out of suburbs may also be an example of this, as deer use suburban plantings as
alternative food sources to supplement naturally-occurring browse. Further, it appears that deer may also depend
on stochastic events – random environmental occurrences – to some degree (Masse and Cote 2011; Shepherd).
Tree root sprouting due to disease, masts of acorns and Beechnuts, and windblown trees have served as subsidies
to woody browse in the Nature Preserve (Horvath, 2014), although it is not within the scope of deer intelligence to

8. determine when such events will occur and plan accordingly. Thus, deer behavior can help to mitigate food
scarcity.
Finally, deer successively select lower and lower quality forage in the absence of abundant and nutrient-dense
foods. When the abundance of one type of vegetation drops, they move on to the next. Highly unpalatable foods
such as Beech sprouts (“Deer Impact Monitoring on Cranberry Pond Conservation Area”), alkaloid containing fern
fronds (Rooney 2008), and eventually low quality grasses can be consumed in times of stress, highlighting the
adaptive change from selective browser to grazer that some deer have made out of desperation (Horvath, 2014;
“Deer Impact Monitoring on Cranberry Pond Conservation Area”). In the most dire circumstances, some deer
have even been witnessed eating dead leaves, twigs, and tree bark to ward off starvation (Horvath, 2014; Masse
and Cote, 2011). This has proven successful in comparison to the normative browsing condition as long as the net
quantity of caloric intake remains similar. In experimental study, “fawns fed the poor-quality diet maintained a
higher forage intake rate throughout the winter than fawns fed the control diet, suggesting a compensationary
response to the decrease of forage quality by consuming more forage during winter” (Taillon et a. 2006). Deer,
thus, demonstrate their generalist herbivory strategy, which contributes to the overall phenotypic plasticity of the
species. Deer foraging behaviors, movement patterns, and habitat selection play a vital role in allowing the
perpetuation of a high density deer population and the overconsumption of nutrient-rich understory vegetation that
results.
Beech sprout height has been evaluated because they are mildly distasteful to deer. Reasonably, with greater deer
pressure, one might expect shorter Beech sprouts due to the lessened availability of more palatable forage.
Notably, the average Beech sprout height in the Nature Preserve is well below waist height, with some areas
exhibiting less than one-foot-high shoots. Bernd Blossey has attested that beech sprout height can be the greatest
indicating factor to unhealthy deer pressure, where shoots around one foot in height signify overabundance and
lower pressure results in taller beech sprouts, at least double in size (Blossey 2014). Tom Rawinski has compiled
data of Beech sprout height fluctuation in a 2014 rep-
ort from Cranberry Pond Conservation Area. Based on the data depicted in Figure 2, he has found that deer utilize
Beech sprouts in the winter season, when other woody browse is more scarce. Notice that the two curves, which
are two separate experimental replications, seem to fit each other’s height fluctuation. This signifies the deer
pressure on Beech sprouts during the winter, and their utilization of more favorable brose with the onset of the next
growing season. He also has signified that one curve shows taller Beech sprouts due to data exclusion; the top
curve shows a higher average because more Beech sprouts died and their height (zero) was excluded (“Deer
Impact Monitoring at Cranberry Pond Conservation Area”).
19.8 20.6 18.4
20.8
17.4 17
22.1
25.8 24.9
30.8
28.4 30.3
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1-Jan-11
1-Apr-11
1-Jul-11
1-Oct-11
1-Jan-12
1-Apr-12
1-Jul-12
1-Oct-12
1-Jan-13
1-Apr-13
1-Jul-13
1-Oct-13
1-Jan-14
1-Apr-14
1-Jul-14
1-Oct-14
Mean Height (in)
Date
Figure 2. Changes in Beech Sprout Height After Four Growing Seasons,
Cranberry Pond Conservation Area, Braintree, MA ("Deer Impact
Monitoring at Cranberry Pond Conservation Area").
East (n=46): 2 died
West (n=34): 10 died

9. Professors Andrus, Shepherd, and Clarke have noticed the marked decline in ground-nesting bird species,
culminating in their recent extirpation throughout the Preserve. This was caused by the low density of ground
cover within which to hide or use as nest-building material. Rossell et al. 2007 demonstrated the adverse effect
that deer could play in reducing the thickness of understory vegetation below one meter in elevation above the
forest floor. Additionally, food sources for these specialist species were lacking. “Lowbush Blueberry, Maple-
leaved Viburnum, and Blackberry, which under normal circumstances would provide soft mast (i.e., berries and
the like) for many species of wildlife, are now too stunted to bear fruit. Thus, there are ripple effects, or, as
researchers say, ‘cascading ecological effects’, of deer overabundance throughout the ecosystem” (Rawinski, 24).
In the case Study of the Nature Preserve, species such as Maple-Leafed Viburnum and Blackberry are non-
existent, not just exhibiting stunted growth (Horvath 2014), indicating the sentinel species role that they may play
(Blossey 2014). Ground-nesting bird absence due to a trophic cascade signifies an exceptional decrease in
understory biomass, presumably supporting the prolonged increase in deer biomass. This reallocation must occur
due to the finite availability of ecosystem nutrients. Therefore, biodiversity loss should be expected, along with a
reorganization of the ecosystem, in the instance of herbivore biomass imbalance (Bressette and Beck 2012).
Bernd Blossey, Associate Professor in the Department of Natural Resources and Director of the Ecology and
Management of Invasive Plants Program at Cornell University, gave an EVOS lecture on Monday, October 6th
,
2014 that warned of deer density and its relationship with forests. In this talk, he detailed some of the
aforementioned history causation of deer abundance, focusing on the ecology of prolonged deer browsing. He
cited “deer sorting” as a main influence on mature forest composition today. This includes trees that recruit to the
canopy, but also includes understory vegetation, insinuating a more complex story to compositional change than
simply selective deer browsing.
Blossey’s lecture showed how deer presence and earthworm abundance were positively correlated. This is of
importance due to the negative impact that both species have in high abundance. Earthworms are an invasive from
Europe that displace soil invertebrates and help to proliferate Garlic Mustard (A. petiolata), another invasive. A
microbial loop within the intestinal cycle of deer feces is thought to be responsible for earthworm abundance and
soil microinvertebrate absence. By his accounts, opportunistic colonization by Garlic Mustard was facilitated by
the deer in two ways: vegetation degradation and earthworm abundance (Blossey 2014).
Blossey concluded, asserting that there was probably not a single square mile of New York landscape that had an
appropriate deer population, based on forest understory composition statewide. This was a radical statement and
should not be taken lightly. By his professional opinion, deer pressure is a prevalent problem throughout New
York, and probably throughout most of the eastern region (Blossey 2014).
Tom Rawinski is a botanist from the National Forest Service based in Durham, New Hampshire that specializes in
deer pressure research in New England. He and Bernd Blossey have visited Binghamton upon request from
resident ecologists, and both have confirmed the inferences of Binghamton faculty through visual evaluation of
forest understory complexity. Rawinski noted the absence of certain common characteristics of a healthy forest
(Andrus 2014).
An array of differently-aged seedlings should indicate the healthy perpetual regeneration of a stand of trees. An
absence of seedlings is a telling indicator. Chestnut sprouts are a notable example of this due to their relegation in
ecological significance by Chestnut blight. They arise from old American Chestnut stumps and eventually die
from the blight before reaching adulthood. With the incidence of deer, their drawn-out extinction could be coming
to a rapid close. A diversity of wildflowers should be present, as should the pollinators that they support. Many
wildflowers and common plants such as Jewelweed, White Trillium, New England Blazing Star, Mayflower,
Maple-leafed Viburnum, and Red Alder can therefore act as sentinel species due to their abundance in a healthy

10. forest understory. Rawinski found these sentinel species and prominent characteristics lacking in the Nature
Preserve. Finally, Tom commented on the short stature of American Beech sprouts. He noted that 8-9 inches, as
was seen in the Nature Preserve lowlands, was a clear indicator, along with the other absences of common forest
characters, that the deer problem here was uniquely severe (Andrus 2014).
Rawinski and Blossey, both very well acquainted with deer pressure concerns in multiple case studies, have
mentioned that Binghamton University’s situation is the worst they have ever seen (Andrus 2014). As stated
earlier, sustained deer density seems to have been fostered by the generalist nature of deer, ecological subsidies
such as suburban plantings, and stochastic events such as acorn mast and windfall.
In the interest of researching the problem more thoroughly, six exclosures were erected within the Preserve. This
is the recommended method for evaluating deer pressure (Andrus 2014) and is commonplace within experimental
ecological studies of many interests. The structures in the Nature Preserve have been evaluated accordingly for
presence of extirpated species, seedling abundance, and ground vegetation density. Dylan, the Nature Preserve
Steward, has noticed an obvious difference in control area to exclosure area ground cover, with the latter exhibiting
greater density of vegetation. However, there was poor representation of extirpated wildflowers and seedlings
initially. This was surprising, as vegetation under forest cover that is released from browsing pressure typically
exhibits growth in the first year, but then less thereafter. It is thought that light represents the limiting factor in
such instances (Rossell et al. 2007). In the case of Binghamton, the opposite effect observed could signify seed
bank exhaustion due to agricultural use that was followed by heavy deer pressure (Andrus 2014). It is certainly not
caused by human trampling in most places – except for the beaten paths and a few select, well-visited areas
(Horvath 2014) – as suggested by Mr. and Mrs. Gruver, Town of Vestal residents (Gruver 2014). Presently rare or
extirpated flowers and plants used to be abundant in greater numbers and people still frequented the Nature
Preserve at that time, disproving that theory (Horvath 2014).
In time, some seedlings and a few wildflowers have recruited the substrate through other methods such as wind
and animal dispersal. In a guided tour of the exclosures I saw Red Alder, Jack in the Pulpit, Starflower,
Mayflower, and Red Trillium, all of which are “deer candy”. Further, I saw seedlings of maples, Black Cherry,
ashes, Chestnut Oak, Hemlock, Sassafras, Witch-hazel, and Arrow-wood that were also very uncommon or not
present in the control areas. Further, the beech sprouts were also above waist-height within the exclosures.
Aside from these qualitative measures, an attempt to quantify deer abundance has also been made. Deer
themselves are an understory species, and Dylan has visually assessed their abundance and activities by walking
through the forest and observing the present deer. This was possible due to the browse line’s existence and the
deer’s lack of skittish behavior.
Dylan noted that there appeared to be two separate populations of deer, likely representing two different lineages.
One group stays mainly in the CIW woods and on campus, foraging on campus plantings in daylight and becoming
emboldened by the lack of predation. The other group habituates the Nature Preserve and surrounding residential
communities. Their territory is much larger and separated from daily human activities, causing them to appear
more skittish. It is also possible that there may be further small groups of deer located on the fringes of the
Preserve. Forest sites for bedding and watering would supplement foraging in the suburbs. Dylan determined that
there were somewhere between forty to sixty deer within the CIW woods alone. He was able to more-accurately
quantify this population because of their relatively bold behavior. This number was attained only through visual
counting of individual deer; no scientific extrapolation of data was used. Extrapolated, this data inferred a deer
density of about one hundred per mile2
.

11. Figure 3. Binghamton University Deer Census (March 23, 2013).

12. In Figure 3 above, a quantitative analysis of deer abundance is shown. Mandated by President Harvey Stenger,
this infrared image shows groups of deer as red dots in the image, adjusted for color and brightness. It appears that
the deer almost completely vacate the Nature Preserve during the night, foraging on campus and within the
surrounding residential areas (“Binghamton University Deer Census”). This is presumably on residential
plantings, which have served as ecological subsidies to the deer (Andrus 2014). This image, taken on the night of
March 23, 2013, serves to illustrate the deer’s ability to daily migrate (“Binghamton University Deer Census”),
which perpetuates a population above the carrying capacity. The data also suggests that there is a reason for the
deer to ignore their prey instincts, leaving the protection of the forest, and solidifying the conclusion that there is
little to no forage left within the Nature Preserve.
While no formal statistical analysis has been done, the observational conclusions of ecological professionals
should be significant enough to prove that there is a deer problem in general. By these qualitative and quantitative
analyses, it has become clear to relevant experts that deer control must be incorporated into the stewardship regime
to avert further ecological disaster. But what do their findings mean for the forest, deer, and for us? Why should
we care that there is an abundance of deer if we are not partial to the intrinsic perspective?
Social and Environmental Implications
It is worthwhile to entertain these questions because of the social value that the Nature Preserve has, or at least that
it should have. We should therefore care about the Forest’s health for a multitude of reasons. Deer can survive in
overabundance due to their phenotypic plasticity, stochastic environmental change, and ecological subsidies.
However, this says nothing about the overall health of individual deer or the herd as a whole – referring to all the
deer that live within the forest on a landscape level (Cambronne, 23). While the campus population seems to be
adequately compensated with quality forage from campus plantings, the Nature Preserve population does not. The
distance traversed in order to feed is much greater than in the first population, likely resulting in a lesser net energy
profit. Accordingly, the former population appears healthier than the latter, having twins each spring in
comparison to one or no offspring from individuals living off campus. Due to a deer’s habitual presupposition to
reproduce annually, the lack of reproduction in the Preserve population indicates its diminished health. Some
incidence of Nose Botfly has also indicated general unhealthiness. Somewhat antithetically, there were only six
deaths to starvation recorded over the past winter, which was as harsh as they come, and serves to indicate that the
deer population is generally healthy (Horvath 2014. This dichotomy shows how deer health in response to
overabundance is altogether unclear in this case study. However, it is worthwhile to echo the scientific studies
presented by suggesting that individuals may live in a perpetual state of starvation. It is ecologically possible for
the herd to be subsisting miserably, but subsisting nonetheless.
So, the case study’s subsisting deer population is clearly hungry for nutrient-rich foods. I have already showed
how deer are willing and able to support themselves on successively-lower quality forage. But what does this
mean for the forest? Selective browsing appears to enable vegetation sorting, ultimately resulting in the abundance
of low quality forage in the understory. Rooney 2008 stipulates, “With deer present, grasses and sedges account
for 83% of plants present in terms of relative cover. Without deer for 16 years, grasses and sedges account for
only <10%, while total cover by ground-layer vegetation increases fourfold.” Clearly, herbivores have the ability
to drive ecosystem change.
This rearrangement in forest composition has striking implications for the future trajectory of forest types.
Prolonged deer pressure in the wake of Graminoid (from plant family Gramineae, the true grasses) ground cover
could serve to disallow forest regeneration, resulting in a more open woodland (Rooney 2008) as canopy gaps
grow in size and abundance (Andrus 2014). Along a similar vein, ground vegetation replacement by Garlic

13. Mustard or Hay-scented, New York, Interrupted, and Christmas fern species, which are all relatively unpalatable to
deer (Horvath, 2014), could result in the same scenario.
Tree composition can also be changed, but this process is easier to ignore due to the time required to recruit to the
canopy and die, providing space for a new recruit (McGarvey et al. 2013). American Beech, which has
demonstrated resistance to moderate deer pressure, could therefore become more abundant, making the entire
forest community more susceptible to Beech bark disease (Rossell et al. 2007). In the case of Binghamton, the
deer pressure is so high that even Beech sprouts have difficulty surviving. Coupled with the prevalence of infected
Beech trees in the Nature Preserve, this problem is not likely to occur. However, this throws the future forest
composition in to even greater question. It appears that no tree species is effectively resistant to deer pressure. It
would not be irrational in this instance to suggest that the Nature Preserve forest could undergo a slow and drawn-
out death before becoming a landscape of unpalatable shrubs and grasses.
The last few paragraphs would tend to appeal to an intrinsically-oriented person, but would do little to inspire
action in someone who does not personally identify with deer, the forest, or nature in general. To address this
point, I would like to show how a forest is instrumentally important to the goals set by Binghamton University.
Forests represent a collection of stored carbon, which has obviously contributed to 19th
and 20th
century carbon
emissions in the form of logging. Likewise, the slow demise of the forest would have a net carbon release effect,
greatly contributing to the carbon footprint of campus and defying the goal of sustainability. However, a forest is
more than a collection of trees. I have referenced the canopy, understory, and ground vegetation that all contribute
to the complexity of a forest. But more than that, there is also the living soil that supports the vegetation above-
ground physically and chemically through complex relationships between plant roots, microbes, and soil particles.
There is evidence that soil degradation caused by such disturbances as ungulate trampling, absence of ground
vegetation, and a change in soil temperature could result in an efflux of carbon into the atmosphere. Bressette and
Beck 2012 shows how saplings in deer exclosure plots were far superior at sequestering carbon than those in the
control group, likely due to decreased physical damage and probability of survival. Likewise, “Carbon
sequestration in saplings were 94% greater in the deer exclosures than in the control plots” (Bressette and Beck
2012), indicated by stem density differentials. To take this even further, soil erosion caused by poor ground-layer
vegetation density has the potential to increase carbon emissions while depleting the forest’s capacity to store
carbon (Andrus 2014). Even if the future landscape does not reflect the relatively extreme examples of forest
demise that I have proposed, the net carbon release from the soil will still occur. As the soil represents the greatest
terrestrial pool of carbon, and could be utilized to affect sustainability, this information alone should inspire action
in campus administration and other policy-makers.
There are many other ecosystem services which a forest provides, such as clean air and water, shade from the sun,
reducing wind velocity, re-radiation of heat in winter, and others which I have chosen to omit. In general, the less
complex a forest is, or the more disturbed it has become, the less effective the forest will be at providing these
services (Andrus 2014). All ecosystem services must be evaluated on our quest to sustainability, but as carbon
footprint analysis is popular right now, I thought I’d highlight it in general. For as environmental problems fall in
and out of favor with the public, being a greater or more distant threat to society, it falls on the public and its
policy-makers to address environmental problems as a whole by capitalizing on unique and severe examples of
environmental destruction.

14. Section III: Difference in Perspective and How They Have Related to Environmental Policy
It is the responsibility of landscape managers to respond to ecological imbalance in whatever way suits the
governing principles of the land in question. Current Binghamton University administration, having final authority
over all University policies, has refused to pursue policies that would address the local nuisance animals, despite
pointed advice from the Natural Areas Steward and other expert ecological advisors. Though ecologists
recommend culling as the most humane option for effectively addressing the deer population problem, campus
administration hesitates to act for fear of injuring the fragile public image of Binghamton University. Indecision –
the result of inadequate evaluation of campus and community support for a proposed deer cull – facilitates
perpetuation of deer overgrazing in natural areas, on campus, and in the surrounding community.
The deer culling matter has gained public attention from many different-minded people and multiple avenues of
response have been proposed. In this section, I will demonstrate the perspective of concerned parties, with
relevance to the past actions of Binghamton University administration, present conditions, and proposed future
resolutions. I will also highlight specific opinions that have resulted in the current administration’s inaction on this
issue, demonstrating the relative apathy toward environmental issues altogether. While a myriad of policy options
have been presented from which the policy makers ought to choose, the reality is that there are external factors that
pay hindrance to administrative action.
The Expert’s Perspective
From the ecologist’s point of view, no one species should be allowed to lead to the destruction of countless others.
But beyond intrinsic relevance, the Nature Preserve also provides a number of instrumental values to the natural
sciences in particular. From the environmental educator’s perspective, it is a valuable laboratory for students and
used by the faculty to conduct environmental research. Professors also frequently use the natural setting to show
examples of ecological principles and as a tool to demonstrate ecosystem and vegetation variation with relevance
to habitat for common plants and animals. With the forest laboratory compromised, it has become very difficult to
teach certain units and classes or conduct research. In this way, even the less active environmentalists have been
adversely affected.
In response to the supposed deer overpopulation and the implied effects to the environment and to us, ecologists
initially vetted their options. There are many ways to reduce the population size of a nuisance animal such as
capture and release elsewhere, enclosing an area with fencing, contraception, sterilization, trap and euthanize,
permitted hunting, and culling. The task force charged with making a decision at that time determined that culling
was the most effective and humane way to reduce the nuisance population effectively, casting aside the other
options as ineffective, inhumane, immoral, or otherwise ill fitting of the management criteria. The following are
reasons why the committee did not favor certain environmental management techniques:
• Transporting deer is illegal in New York State due to the possibility for spreading Cervid Wasting Disease
(CWD) and because deer are very abundant in most places (Horvath 2014). Further, this practice is inhumane as
deer are often confused and die for unknown reasons following translocation (Sterba, Cambronne). Incidences
of myopathy have been observed in displaced deer, attributed to a sense of fidelity for ‘home’ (Horvath 2014).
Some committee members also thought it would be immoral of the institution to turn the deer problem over to
somebody else (Andrus 2014).
• Fencing off the Nature Preserve was disfavored for similar inhumane and immoral reasons as above (Horvath
2014). Also, the added cost of fencing in one square mile and providing numerous access gates posed a serious
monetary concern (Andrus 2014).

15. • Contraception is not approved by the New York state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) except
by special permit because it is unproven to work (“Answers to Common Questions”). Some studies have even
shown that there are negative side effects, causing male deer significant distress because of prolonged estrus
cycles. Males, who often forgo eating in pursuit of as many mates as possible, have died of starvation. There is
also a correlation between contraception and rape, causing stress to the entire herd of deer and casting this
management technique as cruel. The added difficulties of effectively administering contraception on all females
periodically and the slow rate at which this would affect a reduction in population shelved this possibility
(Horvath 2014).
• Sterilization was determined to be impossible to finance and effectively implement due to the vast number of
deer within the population. Even if there were sufficient funds and time to support this technique, the effects
would be too slow to effectively allow environmental restoration, similar to contraception. Also similar to
contraception, tying the fallopian tubes (stopping there) would not be humane, as this would still allow deer to
repeatedly enter estrus. The ovaries would have to be removed in order to avert this negative side effect,
necessitating a more invasive and costly procedure (“Cornell University Culls and Studies its Deer Herd”).
• Trap and euthanize would definitely be ecologically effective but was considered less favorable to culling
because of the extra money and labor involved. Some could also argue that undue stress would be caused to
trapped animals after they were captured (Horvath 2014).
• The prospect of opening up the Preserve to hunting causes many reasons for concern. Who would be allowed to
hunt, with what weaponry, and how frequently? How would safety be assured in the Nature Preserve? How
would safety be assured in the surrounding suburbs? How could there be any certainty that the deer population
would be reduced to the desired density? How long would the Nature Preserve be closed to students and
community members who use it frequently? For these uncertainties and probably more, permitted hunting was
disfavored because it would be too difficult to regulate (Horvath 2014).
The result of this analysis was that the committee favored culling by default. Dylan Horvath, the Steward, was a
notable example of the manner in which the result was arrived at. Initially, he was not in favor of a deer cull for
personal reasons. However, as the facts were presented, “I knew that it would be irrational to say that we shouldn’t
kill the deer. Predators prevent the suffering of the old and the weak [in the natural setting], and I couldn’t ignore
that rational thought” (Horvath 2014). Only trained sharpshooters could be counted on to fulfill all the criteria of
an effective ecological management response to deer overpopulation. Most importantly, the desired ecological
result would be easily accomplished through baiting at multiple sites, attracting the deer population. Safety of the
hunters would be ensured by their scarcity and by nature of following a constructed plan. Suburban safety would
be ensured because the distant bait and kill sites would be chosen such that any missed shots would be caught in a
hill or tree. Finally, the deer would be humanely dispatched, dying quickly from a shot to the head instead of
wasting away slowly in the destroyed natural community that is the Preserve or being struck by a moving vehicle,
which would endanger human lives and property as well. As a humanitarian bonus, this technique would also
produce thousands of pounds of venison, literally tons of meat which could be donated to local food pantries
(Andrus 2014, Horvath 2014, “Answers to Common Questions”).
With the demonstrated ecological justification and management motive supporting them, ecologists applied for a
nuisance animal removal permit from the DEC and filed the appropriate paperwork. An official document
detailing the deer issue was drafted by the Steward and submitted for review. Concurrently, the administration at
that time was notified of the issue and urged to comply with the recommendations of the environmental committee.
President Peter Magrath, interim president of Binghamton from 2010-2011, was in favor of this proposed
management plan and supported its implementation. The DEC reviewed and accepted the management plan in
2011, allowing the administration and ecologists to collaborate in orchestrating the 2012 deer cull (Horvath 2014).

16. Past Public Opinion
When the public became aware of the proposed cull, there were a variety of responses. Some people were in favor
and some were indifferent. Members of the local community that were outspoken against the management plans
had a few reasons. Mostly, local hunters wanted the right to hunt the deer themselves (Horvath 2014). Some
people were concerned about public safety, especially people who lived in the surrounding suburbs. A select few
were animal rights activists and branded the University environmental team as foolish and ill-informed.
As a formal public response, animal rights activists from many distant places were enlisted to petition the cull.
The website Change.org was used as a medium to bring this issue to public attention and spread the opinions of
“Italia Millan” from Auburn Hills, Michigan, who authored the petition’s outreach statement. She compiled a list
of reasons why anyone and everyone should be interested in halting the “senseless deer slaughter at B.U.’s Nature
Preserve” (“Urgent”), including support from a few peer-reviewed scientific studies. The petition got 8,730
supporters from change.org members and was distributed to Nancy Zimpher, Chancellor of SUNY, James
VanVoorst, Binghamton University Vice President of Administration, Binghamton University interim President
Peter Magrath, Binghamton University President-elect Harvey Stenger, and Julian Shepherd, Chairman of the
Binghamton University Committee for the University Environment (CUE). It should be noted that the most
prominent comments on the petition’s discussion board were posted by people from Bedford, Ohio; Puerto
Vallarta, Mexico; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Silver Springs, Maryland; and Rochester Hills, Michigan (“Urgent”).
While this petition did not have the desired effect of influencing Binghamton University policy-makers, it did
sound the alarm and influence other eager members of the public that became outspoken against the proposed cull,
but in a different way.
Unfortunately for ecologists, the University was sued by a neighboring property owner and Professor of English at
Binghamton University with the political backing of an animal rights organization called “In the Defense of
Animals” on the grounds of public safety concerns and animal rights violations that the deer cull could induce.
Broome county Justice Molly Fitzgerald, who heard this case (“Judge Considers Effort to Stop Binghamton
Campus Deer Culling”), ruled that the University must comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act
(SEQRA) two days before the scheduled cull, insisting that the University must acknowledge any negative
environmental impact to an overseeing agency. It has remained on indefinite hold ever since (Horvath 2014).
Although Binghamton University policy-makers complied with the court’s ruling, ecologists protested. Mandating
a SEQRA review and overriding DEC requirements would be “an illogical circle because the DEC would oversee
the project anyway” (Horvath 2014). Further, the DEC had explicitly stated that Binghamton University’s project
only required an animal nuisance form, which questioned whether the environmental management and intervention
would impact the movement or size of an animal population. The DEC did not require a SEQRA review, which
was premise to appeal. However, the DEC declined to make a statement on the court ruling when confronted.
There was no way to avert the Justice’s decree without state support (Horvath 2014).
Today, the deer cull issue remains a prominent conversation point in the environmental community, as the
ecological, educational, and societal problems it creates are part of our everyday lives. The Steward and Chairman
of CUE have submitted the SEQRA review to the DEC and the cull has, again, been approved. With everything in
order legally, environmental activists have become rather restless. They still assert that action must be taken for
ecological and educational reasons and that a cull is the only way the deer population can be brought back to
sustainable levels.

17. Other Institutions and Their Deer Problems
The prominence of deer overabundance has arisen elsewhere since the failed attempt locally. Vassar College and
Cornell University have both been negatively impacted by deer abundance and have resolved to address the issue.
Coincidentally, the most humane and effective tactic was also determined by a committee of naturalists and
administration to be a deer cull in both cases.
Vassar has used a website to reach out to interested or ignorant community members as a way to avoid the
problems that Binghamton has faced (“Answers to Common Questions”). In the end, the same organization, “In
the Defense of Animals”, was responsible for supporting a Poughkeepsie resident, Marcy Schwartz, and her
endeavor to halt the deer cull. This was only temporarily successful. “On Dec. 21, 2012, state supreme court
Justice James Brands said the DEC had acted properly and denied the plaintiff’s request for a restraining order:
Vassar then went ahead with the deer kill” (Press and Sun – Bulletin). An appeal followed this ruling, but it was
similarly unsuccessful. The appeals court ruled that Justice Brands had indeed made the correct ruling on October
25th
, 2014, upholding the validity of the 2012 deer cull and the DEC’s administrative actions. Jeff Kosmacher, a
public spokesperson for Vassar, commented on the monumental significance of the two rulings. In effect, Vassar
was provided with positive press that demonstrated the institution’s dedication to solve environmental stewardship
problems within the confines of the law (Press and Sun – Bulletin). Vassar’s 2010 ad 2012 culls (Vancamp) have
been justified by the courts, and so have others in the future that will be conducted to manage the deer population.
Cornell, on the other hand, has not run into legal trouble in the same light as Vassar College or Binghamton
University. Although there was an animal rights campaign in opposition to the “trap and bolt” technique, there
was no legal action taken against Cornell for some reason. Bernd Blossey stated, “Despite the social media storm
that was created, we got the support of the administration” (“Cornell University Culls and Studies its Deer Herd”).
During Blossey’s lecture, he also shared insight into Cornell’s deer population management techniques and
the policy process that has been followed. Initially, the two-hectare exclosure in the care of the Atkinson Center
for a Sustainable Future (ACSF) was used to justify action on the part of Cornell environmental management
professionals. Once it was determined that deer were indeed the problem, the management team then moved
forward to evaluate deer control options. In a prolonged experiment, the Cornell management team determined by
trial and error that a deer cull was necessary. For experimental manipulation, they planted oak seedlings within
exclosures at forty Tompkins County locations, including the Cornell campus, as well as twelve locations in the
Hudson River Valley (Blossey), and then evaluated survival rates in comparison to control groups. Management
techniques were then varied temporally at sites on the Cornell campus, while off-campus sites were only
observationally evaluated. The first “trial” was conducted after does were sterilized by resident veterinarians.
This five-year effort cost an estimated $800-$1000 per deer, but did not result in a decrease in the deer population
(“Cornell University Culls and Studies its Deer Herd”). The second “trial” involved opening up select campus
grounds to a restricted number of local hunters, who were vetted and received special permission from campus
administration (Blossey).
The overwhelming truth was that sterilization and permitted hunting resulted in the same conclusion as no action,
or the control group; within thirty days, all the planted oak seedlings were browsed. This signified a heavy
browsing pressure that disallowed prolonged substrate recruitment of seedlings and canopy recruitment of
saplings. Clearly, the sterilization and hunting techniques did not reduce the deer population by a healthy enough
margin to affect lower deer pressure.
As this result was not acceptable to the conservation personnel at Cornell, they have settled on a “bolt and trap”
technique as a viable option for deer control. This is essentially the same as sharpshooters, except that this method

18. allows researchers to take tissue samples from trapped individuals before dispatching them (“Cornell University
Culls and Studies its Deer Herd”). DEC nuisance permits were obtained in 2013 and 2014 with no qualms from
the Cornell administration. In 2014, thirty-seven of an estimated one hundred resident deer were shot, resulting in
nine hundred pounds of venison meat that was given to hunters and to a local food pantry (Blossey 2014).
The Binghamton University campus administration remains painfully aware of the latest news in deer
overabundance. Outspoken environmental activists, such as resident faculty members and students, make sure to
fill in relevant policy-makers on their personal opinions concerning the trajectory of the Nature Preserve. It is
unclear whether policy-makers know about Vassar and Cornell’s successes. Unfortunately for the
environmentalists, their voiced opinions have not induced action.
The Administrator’s Perspective and the Students’ Response
Binghamton University President Harvey Stenger, the leader of campus administration and head policy-maker, is
unwilling to confront this issue publicly. He is unwilling to compromise the institution’s image at any cost. “To
me, the risk [of bad press] is not outweighed by the benefit of forest regeneration because I am not convinced that
culling will work. Until [the ecologists] can convince me that culling will work, it won’t outweigh the risk”
(Stenger). He continued, insinuating that he viewed culling as ineffective because deer could, and would move in
again. Whether by proliferation or herd movement, the deer problem would persist from his perspective,
necessitating repeated culls and repeated bad press (Stenger).
In a casual conversation with him, President Stenger further explained his fear of bad press. The change.org
petition seems to have resonated with him, perhaps due to his appearance on the Binghamton scene right in the
middle of the animal rights activist public outcry and just as the court ruling was reached. He noted that there were
almost nine thousand signatures on the animal rights petition, but that he only received seven environmentalist
emails by comparison. I did not ask whether he was aware of the addresses of some of the bell-ringers for animal
rights, which were not from Binghamton or Vestal, as aforementioned (“Urgent”). Through this simplified
evaluation of public opinion data, he has apparently concluded that the deer cull was in the disfavor of almost one
hundred percent of the public community (Stenger).
Despite this opinion, he admittedly agreed that the deer were overpopulated and that he might be willing to address
the issue by fencing in the entire Nature Preserve. When I responded that ecologists might not support that plan,
he shrugged off the suggestion that it was the University’s responsibility to deal with the deer. Although Stenger
briefly entertained the possibility of taking evasive action toward Nature Preserve destruction, he then faulted,
slighting the severity of the ecological implications. He cited the club in Pennsylvania that his family frequented
when he was a kid, and that he now belongs to as an adult. In a remarkably-careless statement, he noted that the
Nature Preserve was similar in appearance and forest complexity to this club’s landscape, which indicated to him
that the Nature Preserve “would probably be alright” (Stenger) for a few years, and that this issue could be dealt
with later, by someone else, after President Stenger had retired (Stenger) .
There may be a few problems with this statement. First, it is not as though the cited forests are one in the same.
Each one may be very unique, likely displaying very different patterns of vegetative composition, biodiversity, and
complexity. Second, it may be very naïve of the President of a prominent public research institution to base such a
significant claim on the hurried comparison of two ecosystems without any qualitative or quantitative evidence to
back up such a claim. More specifically, it is quite feasible that his family club’s forest might also exhibit
excessive herbivory in the understory, potentially resulting in their similar appearance. Third, this assumption,
coupled with his demonstrated ambivalence to the claims posed by ecologists, indicates a professional disrespect
for the natural sciences. “I am the only one bringing any real science to this issue”, claimed President Stenger,

19. citing his mandate of an infrared flyover in comparison to the expert opinions of ecologists. This comment in
particular could be construed as professional disrespect for naturalists and their field’s research methods, although
a more thorough interview of him is likely needed for clarification. Importantly, the comment also shows
Stenger’s profound misunderstanding of the natural world that surrounds him. “Natural delays in mature tree
recruitment in a closed-canopy forest may mask the full impact of deer herbivory for decades” (McGarvey et al.
2013), which may understandably contribute to Stenger’s opinions and ambivalence. However, carelessness to this
degree is inexcusable from such a leader.
In fairness, these were side comments in a casual conversation; but that is perhaps more telling of the nature of
President Stenger’s thoughts. His lack of mental attention and care to properly addressing this environmental
problem becomes very evident through his conversational disregard of its severity. Further, the simple fact of his
inaction demonstrates his opinion all too clearly. By not publicly addressing the deer overabundance issue,
environmentalists who observe his actions may be forced to conclude that President Stenger:
• may be willing to allow assumption of public opinion guide his policy decisions (or indecisions);
• may care little for the interactive educational capacity of departments within the natural sciences, the research
potential within natural science fields, the opinions of naturalist professionals, and the intrinsic values of the
environment;
• may be unable to envision a future scenario involving extreme environmental changes;
• may only be motivated to pursue sustainability through the avenues of technology and engineering;
• and therefore may have difficulty leading the policy-making process on this particular issue.
It should be noted that while my statements may not be wholly true, I am only forced to assume this perspective
because President Stenger is unwilling to appreciate posits from ecological research professionals and has yet to
step into the limelight to clarify his personal opinions. At any rate, these statements must be true to some degree
based on the factual chain of events. He has demonstrated this through his actions more-so than through his words,
and thus alienated the environmentalists from the potential for collaboration.
In response to this inaction, some students have been very active in addressing the neglect of the Nature Preserve.
Ryan Ginsberg, writer for the school newspaper, ‘The Pipe Dream’, has come forward to rally students using
Lyme’s disease as justification for culling deer (Ginsberg). He argues that the spread of Lyme’s disease to people
that frequent the nature preserve could increase (Ginsberg). Julian Shepherd, resident ecologist and entomologist
at BU, supports Ginsberg’s statements, affirming that the deer tick population, which is known to carry the
disease-causing bacterium Borrelia, has risen in abundance here in Broome County, spreading northward from
Long Island and New England. He also suggests that this increase will most-likely result in a larger number of
disease-carrying individuals taking residence in the Nature Preserve (Shepherd). I personally received
confirmation in an anonymous email that there were at least two confirmed cases of Lyme’s disease that afflicted
community members (Anonymous), but I have no way of knowing whether these were the only two. It appears
that Ginsberg’s response to Stenger was certainly warranted, as Lyme’s Disease poses significant threats to human
health if not caught in time. Ginsberg and other students could certainly use Lyme’s Disease as a rallying point
against inaction in general.
Deborah Howard, Director of the Office of Sustainability for the greater SUNY system would likely commend
Ginsberg’s statements, for they are some of the only publicly outspoken words against the administration from
students. In a phone interview, Howard stressed the importance of student involvement in this issue, or other
issues for that matter. She suggested that students tell the administration that something must be done about the
campus deer population (Howard). She is in support of Executive Order 88, which is a SUNY-wide mandate

20. holding buildings under the direct authority of the Governor to a 20% reduction in energy consumption by April
1st
, 2020 (Exec. Order 88). Thus, campus administration will undoubtedly be hyper-focused on meeting that goal.
If students wish their particular institutions to take more assertive action with regards to sustainability, or with
regards to a particular facet of sustainability, Howard suggests that they make that fact known. “Students don’t
understand the power they hold in college, a power they probably won’t have again in a very long time” (Howard).
In other words, Howard believes that it is the institution’s duty to listen to their students, and accordingly, she
admitted her disappointment that students hadn’t capitalized on this opportunity to tell administration what the
Nature Preserve means to them (Howard).
From this perspective, it would seem that the student population is partially at fault here. Failure to realize the
importance of the Nature Preserve through activism serves to highlight how little the Nature Preserve might mean
to the collective student body. Even though I have no data to support the following statement, I’m going to make it
anyway: I would not be surprised if over half of the student population had only been in the Nature Preserve a
handful of times, if at all. This claim stems from my observation of peers during my education, and the relative
lack of care for the environment many of them possess. I have heard people scoff at the name ‘Nature Preserve’,
saying, “I would never go in there; aren’t there bears in there?!?” Further, it would seem to me that a greater uproar
would have occurred, had there been mass allegiance to environmental health and specifically the Nature Preserve.
This still does not account for environmental studies and biology majors, who spend an inordinate amount of time,
in class and extracurricularly, in the Nature Preserve. Why have no student groups picketed Couper
Administration building, or lined the campus with signage? Apathy on the part of the student body should also be
addressed in detailing the history of this issue. Inconsequentialism, or the belief that one’s individual actions
would do nothing to change the course of history, seems to have repressed student outcry to disjointed grumblings
among friends.
In conclusion, the future trajectory of the deer abundance issue and Binghamton University’s policy response is
uncertain at best. Environmentalists and animal rights activists have successfully combined to confound the head
policy-maker at Binghamton University. From the context of technology and engineering, President Stenger
cannot conceive of an affective plan of action to address the deteriorating local environment, and he appears to not
want to. In a stunning demonstration of inadequate evaluation, Stenger is content to allow assumption to guide the
policy-making process at Binghamton University. In response to this, the students have been largely absent from
the knowledge or discussion of the deer issue, leaving no incentive to alter the administrative course of action.
Section IV: A Survey of the Binghamton University Student Body and Surrounding
Residential Areas: Assessment of Knowledge and Opinions Concerning the “Deer Issue”
In the interest of demonstrating public outreach and a proper response to the unclear public opinion, I have
conducted a survey of the campus population and local residential communities. Survey questions were posed in a
way that gauged participants’ opinions, but also their level of attention to the deer issue. In this section, I will
detail the methods, results, and conclude with the discussion of public opinion and knowledge. The data has the
potential to enlighten administrators so they may not have to base policy decisions off general assumptions or the
assertions of extremists that do not adequately represent local human populations. Overall, the survey can also be
utilized to make a public statement to policy makers.

21. Methods
I conducted a survey of residents from the surrounding suburbs, Binghamton students, and faculty members.
Survey questions were tailored so that the answers would reflect a participant’s general knowledge and opinions
concerning the deer cull at Binghamton University. Question content and order were manipulated so that
participants could honestly answer questions concerning their awareness, and then have the opportunity to reassert
their position upon being presented with potentially-new information. Participants were always provided with a
“no opinion” option when complex concepts or opinions were in question. Likewise, participants were notified of,
and had the opportunity to stop taking the survey at any time by closing the browser. The survey was constructed
using surveymonkey.com, and the unique URL address, https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/bu-
naturepreserve_deer, was included in the recruitment documents. Further, the survey complied with Human
Subjects requirements, and was subjected to, and subsequently passed review by that department.
Participant recruitment was achieved through a combination of online email and paper-mail methods, whereby the
invitation to potential participants allowed for voluntary participation in the survey. Students and faculty were
recruited by forwarding the recruitment papers to department list-serves through email. Suburban residents were
recruited by sending the recruitment papers to their home address. Community recipients were determined using
maps.google.com, and recruitment remained random, with the only criterion being that a potential participant must
live in a development adjacent to the Nature Preserve. By this method, there was a greater probability that
participants would be people who frequent the Nature Preserve and care about policies concerning it.
Results
I found that a large majority of the people surveyed have been in support of the deer cull in the past and that a
greater majority became in favor of the cull after being enlightened about certain factual details. Refer to the
Appendix for a full readout of survey questions and their data summaries. Firstly, as Table 2 indicates, a majority
of survey participants agree with the statement: “There are too many deer in the Nature Preserve”. Table 1, shown
below, is a summary table of the survey’s most telling questions and answers, and the percent change between
repeated questions. I have combined similar answers to evaluate the results of the survey. “Strongly Support” and
“Support” have been combined, as have “Strongly Oppose” and “Oppose”. “Neutral” and “No Opinion” have
been combined as well because Q10 has a “Neutral” option.
Table 1.
Question
Support
(%)
%
Change
Oppose
(%)
%
Change
Neutral/No Opinion
(%)
%
Change
10 61.11 - 9.53 - 29.37 -
14 79.92 30.78 14.57 52.88 5.2 -82.22
16 83.95 5.04 12.69 -12.91 3.36 -35.39
Total %
Change 37.38 33.16 -88.56
Q10, which asked participants if they had been in favor of the cull during the initial attempt, shows that, even
initially, there was a majority of public support for the cull. This was in comparison to little opposition and almost
1/3 participant indifference. After being enlightened that the cull was cancelled, that the DEC gave their
permission, and that an infrared flyover had been conducted to verify deer abundance, support increased by 31%.
Opposition also increased by 53%, but remained below 15% of the total participant opinion. Importantly, Q11, 12,
and 13 sorted those who initially had “No Opinion”, with an 82% decrease in indifference from Q10 to Q14.

22. Table 2.
Table 3.

23. Table 4.
Table 5.

24. Q15 informed participants of a scientific consensus supporting the deer cull. This indicated that experts who were
aware of a proper deer population density, a healthy forest’s appearance, and had personally investigated the
Nature Preserve were all in agreement. The reiteration of the important question in Q16 also showed an increase
in support, this time by 5%, making the % change in support for a deer cull 37% from Q10 to Q16. The overall
support for a cull was 84% of participants, with 64.5% strongly supporting. This is compared to an overall 13% in
opposition, with 5% in strong opposition. Additionally, an overall 88.5% decrease in participant apathy toward a
deer cull was noted.
Discussion
Q7 clearly indicates that participants are aware that there is an ongoing discussion about deer abundance occurring
and that an overwhelming majority are strongly in favor or in favor of the assertion that “There are too many deer
in the Nature Preserve”. Likewise, this implies that participants would generally prefer a situation where there are
less deer in the Nature Preserve for some reason. It is therefore surprising to find the following question, Q8, to
have a dissimilar alliance of public opinion. There is a smattering of different opinions as to the University’s past
environmental management actions. I would normally gather from Q8 that the local community members were in
favor of some other management regime besides a cull that resulted in deer abundance decrease, but Q10 disproves
that assertion. It appears that about 62% of participants were strongly in favor of or in favor of a deer cull two
years ago, with the next highest category being 20% “no opinion / I answered no [to Q9]”.
Q13 indicates that more than 68% of participants were unaware that an infrared flyover was conducted subsequent
to the initial cull attempt, verifying the qualitative assumptions of ecologists. This is immensely important because
it demonstrates that there was a majority of participants in favor of the deer cull before they were even aware of
this quantitative analysis of deer abundance. Supplementing this assessment, the majority increased to an
overwhelming 80% when participants were asked whether they supported a deer cull in Q14, which was after they
were given the infrared flyover information. It is interesting to note that although this majority has increased, the
percentage of those opposed has also increased from 8% to 13%. My explanation for this occurrence is that the
individuals who were indifferent to the cull were only indifferent because they felt that they were not adequately
informed. Upon receiving minimal information, they may have felt comfortable enough to pledge their opinion
one way or the other.
Once the participants were asked in Q15 whether they were “aware of a scientific consensus that exists, advising
that a healthy deer population should be in the range of 5 – 15 individuals per square mile”, which only half of
them were aware of, the percentage of participants that “Strongly Agree” or “Agree” with a proposed cull jumps to
84%, and accordingly, 94% implied in Q17 that a deer cull could be a beneficial environmental management tool
used in the Nature Preserve and elsewhere. This is highly significant in that the reiteration of the question “Given
this information, how would you describe your support?” shows a portion of the public who have not been
adequately informed and that once they are, most of them align with scientific consensus.
Q18 queried, “In general, who do you believe should make the decision regarding the necessity of a deer cull on
publicly-owned University land?” and the results were mixed. 37% said that scientists alone should make the
decision while 48% of participants answered that a “combination of the above” should collaborate to make the
decision. With no clear majority, and with many people believing that scientists should play at least a major role
in the policy process at an educational institution, this question’s results could imply public frustration with the
current administration. This inference is solely based on my knowledge of the current administration and the fact
that scientific experts are being ignored. It is unclear how much of this information the public is aware of or can
infer.

25. With the last question, Q19, there is another example of varied answers. This could pose some qualitative
significance, as it is clear by this question, Q8’s varied responses, and the lack of public knowledge demonstrated
in many other questions that Binghamton University’s lack of public presence in the face of this issue has resulted
in collective public ignorance.
Importantly, the cumulative data does not represent what is assumed about the public by Harvey Stenger in any
capacity. Yes, there are representatives of the community that oppose the cull, but they in no way encompass a
solid majority of public opinion, much less greater than 90%! It is clear from this one survey that the assumptions
made about the public were rash and unjustified.
I would like to counter this perspective by suggesting that this survey data alone does not justify any clear course
of action, at least in terms of a definitive “yea” or “nay to the deer cull. Many people likely remain too unaware of
factual ecology or the resolution of the court ruling. It is clear from this survey that Binghamton University should
maintain a more public presence with regard to this issue, if only to field questions from interested community
members. Further, this survey says nothing about how a university feels it should conduct itself in policy-making
and implementation, only what tax-payers think. If the University decides to give decision-making power to the
tax-payers in the local community, that is the institution’s right. However, it should be noted that environmental
experts and university policy-makers have the capacity to affect the correct decision without public help or
support. While it may be a worthwhile endeavor to educate the local community about public university policies,
it is not wholly clear whether Binghamton University must necessarily take action in regard to their opinions.
Section V: Personal Opinions and Concluding Statements
It should be relatively clear by now that I am an environmentalist. My perspective in writing demonstrates that I
am partial to the general conclusion that has been reached by the many ecologists that have evaluated the Nature
Preserve and offered an opinion. In this section, I will expand upon my own opinions to discuss how the policy-
making process should take place and how I think policies should be executed as the principle researcher. I will
evaluate the role that universities might play in public education and the moral obligations an institution of higher
learning might have. My motivations behind these statements and writing this paper in general will be explained
as I lead this conversation to its conclusion.
Personally, I feel that the problem of deer overpopulation should be addressed due to the destruction of the Nature
Preserve, which I value intrinsically. If I remove my emotions, I arrive at the same result, but for utilitarian
reasons that distinctly echo the perspective of resident and visiting ecologists/naturalist professionals. The forest
ecosystem provides many services that are valuable to a sustainable society. We should embrace those services as
important and worthy of our attention, protecting them from degradation due to environmental imbalance.
Therefore, I believe that University policy-makers have an obligation to protect these services, and the ecosystems
that provide them, because it is in our best interest.
Currently, the President has personally halted any effective progress toward protecting the Nature Preserve
capacity to provide ecosystem services. He may or may not be supported by fellow members of the
administration. I do not personally find this insulting because I do not believe that Stenger is refusing to act out of
spite. I am convinced that ignorance and values are the overwhelming drivers of his inaction. Stenger is not an
ecologist and he probably has difficulty empathizing with them, likely having a different value set on which he
bases decisions. “Because value differences divide participants [in policy-making], environmental policy conflicts
are rarely resolved by appeals to reason; no amount of technical information is likely to convert adversaries in such

26. disputes” (“A Policymaking Framework”). As such, it is likely that the way technical information is gathered is
another motivator of conflict in this instance.
However, I do profoundly disagree with Stenger’s inaction and find his lack of seriousness toward environmental
issues to be concerning at best. Above all, it is important to note that inaction in the face of environmental
problems is in the favor of nobody because the public space becomes more degraded with time. Therefore,
Stenger should make a policy decision sooner rather than later so that the landscape can begin to recover. While I
would personally urge him to make the correct decision based on my own education and opinions, it would
certainly serve the public better to fence in the Nature Preserve, as he briefly suggested, than to allow it to continue
to deteriorate.
Hypothetically, if the University were to endorse a public policy that addressed deer overpopulation in general,
what would the institution be saying? By actions alone, the institution would certainly make such statements as:
• “__________ is valued as a constituent”, depending wholly on what the policy is, who is in support, and
how it is implemented.
• “Environmental problems in general are worth addressing, even if controversial.”
• “Deer overabundance is worth researching, as it is a prevalent issue at BU, within SUNY, throughout New
York, and throughout the eastern region.”
• “It is important to keep supporting the natural sciences as viable career paths. The natural sciences deserve
basic funding for preservation of the main laboratory space used for education and research”, as opposed to
only supporting sciences that are technology-oriented.
• “The Nature Preserve is valuable as an aesthetic benefit for students, faculty, and community members to
enjoy.”
These statements and more are in contrast to the statements currently endorsed by the University, likely causing a
deal of bad press within certain social circles. Such bad press could be corrected with positive statements, which
would serve as beacons to the public, indicating Binghamton University’s serious commitment to sustainability in
many facets.
Whatever the decision, it should be arrived at through a collaboration of policy-makers and environmental
scientists. A situation where the policy-makers blatantly ignore the suggestions of experts is poor leadership at
best, and strains professional relationships because it is personally insulting. By contrast, if the environmental
professionals made the decisions and overrode the policy-makers, there would be no purpose for the unbiased
position that administrators are charged to hold. A much healthier relationship would be one where both policy-
makers and natural scientists appreciate the concerns of each other. Only then can an appropriate decision be
affected.
From my perspective, the public should play little to no role in the institutional policy-making process. Their lack
of expertise in ecology is exacerbated by the use of public media in transfer of information, which generally results
in the spread of misinformation. Additionally, the public will always disagree amongst themselves depending on
personal or religious beliefs, ignorance, personal investment, sensitivity to environmental issues in general, life
experiences, and especially with regard to an increasing sample size. Unless a popular vote was held for certain
issues, there would be no way of addressing or quantifying these potentially-differing points of view. Finally,
although the survey sampled the most relevant people to this issue, and certainly was a better analysis than blind
assumption, I fear the sample size was so small that we may not be able to significantly correlate the results with
average public opinion. Further, as suggested in the Discussion, the public need not be included in this decision
making process altogether if the administration does not think it is pertinent or right to do so. I believe that this is

27. an instance where the public should not weigh in on the public policy outcome because of the ineptitude of the
average person at understanding complex ecological theories. Yes, they are tax payers and the administration
should listen to what the public has to say and respond to it. However, just as we are not permitted to vote on
congressional bills as American citizens and we must place faith in a delegate, so too should the public place faith
in their public officers to manage the politics behind the deer cull issue, voicing public opinion in the process.
While I am addressing public opinion, I would like to make one thing clear. Irrelevant people do not represent the
“public” in this instance and should bear absolutely no weight in the policy decision, even if public opinion were
considered. Change.org is a website used to muster support for change in general via the internet, where web-
surfers can access any petition, in any subject area, from any location. For all we know, there may be some people
who spend fifteen minutes a day copying and pasting their name for countless causes, all the while being
remarkably unaware of reality. A man from Japan could feasibly sign the petition against deer culling even if he
couldn’t read English to understand what he was supporting.
Likewise, the petition to stop the cull at BU was organized and distributed by change.org member ‘Italia Millan’
from Michigan. She patched together a few scientific studies that said exactly what she wanted them to say
without adequately vetting their content for relevance to the unique ecological condition at BU. Her ignorance is
evident when she says, “The forest ecology in B.U.’s nature preserve is no different than the rest of the forest areas
in New York State” (Change.org petition). This is in comparison to the quantitative and qualitative ecological
analysis that has been conducted by ecologists in favor of the cull. Further, the author of the petition statement
woefully disregarded factual information when she insisted that ecologist claims were not supported by scientific
evidence, deer survey, or environmental impact evaluation. This and other misinformation within the petition
statement likely served to dishonestly induce people to sign. Finally, the petitioners, including the original signer,
were from places hundreds of miles from Binghamton (Change.org).
So how can the petition be taken seriously? Misunderstanding of the problem at hand may skew the opinions of the
petitioners, and even if they were to understand the problem adequately, who cares? They don’t even pay taxes in
New York State, much less Vestal or Binghamton. I understand that change.org is meant to be an organization that
allows for greater expression of first amendment rights, which is a good intent, but I believe that waving around
one’s signature with no attention paid to detail could potentially do more harm than good if one is not careful.
So where can we go from here? The DEC has approved the cull again. The county Justice Fitzgerald that stopped
the cull in January 2012 has no basis to do so again. Further, the appeals court ruling in Poughkeepsie could serve
as a precedent set to justify deer culls at public educational institutions. We are not alone in our problems,
although we do uniquely harbor very high deer browsing pressure. All that remains is approval from
administration.
Overall, the decision that must be made is a difficult one to make. That is why we find ourselves in this
predicament to begin with. But, someone has to be brave enough to make the decision, fully understanding what
that decision means and how it will affect people and the environment. I think the deer need to be culled every few
years because there is no feasible way to keep the population under control otherwise. It is by default that I come
to this conclusion. But, I arrive there nonetheless, realizing that this problem was caused and propagated due to
human disturbance of ecological systems and that a cull is the most humane method for effectively returning the
rate of understory herbivory to sustainable levels. I am justified in my opinion because the environmental health of
the nature preserve, including preservation of all species of animals and plants and the individuals’ lives that
represent them, should take precedent to the preservation of the individuals within one population. It is the
sacrifice of some to save many.