Environmental Research Associates

Research & Consulting Ecologists

September 2008


Airspace Redesign23 Sep 2008 02:00 am

The following document is a September 10, 2008 letter to the editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer from the U.S. Congressional Offices of Congressman Joe Sestak and Congressman Robert E. Andrews in response to Philadelphia Inquirer Article by Tom Belden dated Sept 8, 2008 regarding the Philadelpia International Airport airspace redesign.

Click here to view the letter.

Deer08 Sep 2008 07:24 pm
  1. No legal opinion, with thorough substantiation, has been received from legal counsel regarding municipal liability for incompletely eliminating deer as potential hazards to safety and health or that township employees are not individually and/or severally liable either for killing or not killing deer as well as planning such a deer kill, however, it is the solicitor’s opinion (7/14 and 8/11/08) there is immunity if nothing is done and potential liability after attempt to kill has been initiated but not completed,  
  2. A scientifically proven method of habitat description has not been completed and a deer population census has not been performed and will not be performed before or after a deer kill has been undertaken, 
  3. The proposed deer kill would be undertaken without oversight or experience of a wildlife ecologist but by  amateur deer hunters whose livelihood professions as police and paramedics are not of skilled deer hunter guides. 
  4.  No scientifically accepted census method has been adopted, either before or after such a deer hunt, to determine numbers, ages, sex, condition, including weight which are data important to bona fide deer management. An informal deer census by driving a motor vehicle “with screaming kids in the car” is not a valid deer census that can be used or is used as a “baseline” survey for deer numbers, 
  5.  A single pre-kill or post-deer kill count either by spotlighting or fixed camera with a trip-wire or field of view beam is not an accepted method of determining deer numbers in a population, 
  6.  Just voting to approve planning for a deer to kill because, “There are deer there” is insufficient reason to approve a deer kill in the absence of other information as given in numbers 1 - 5 above,
  7. It is flawed logic to provide and transfer information, photographs and digital images from other municipalities or states in the eastern United States - not specifically from Haverford as well as surrounding municipalities — as reason for and to make a case for killing deer in Haverford,   
  8.  A deer kill “from tree stands with shotgun slugs shooting down toward the ground” does not completely explain that hunters must quickly exit down from deer stands to immediately kill wounded deer, which may require a chase with additional shots fired in any direction across the ground from an inaccurate weapon — the shotgun — as well as individually tagging, gutting and field dressing such a deer thus killed,. or as may be killed, before resuming the deer stand to kill the next animal.
  9. An incompletely planned and managed deer hunt by volunteers is deeply flawed and should not be undertaken.   
  10.  As a consequence of the foregoing, such a “planned” (sic) deer kill is in fact, unplanned, chaotic, not undertaken according to professional standards for such an undertaking and, therefore, is not in the public interest.