CTFishTalk.com: Proposed law aims to lower Lyme disease rates - Connecticut General Topics ( CT General Topics ) - A Community Built for Connecticut Fisherman.

bigoutdoors · Joined: 09 May 2007 Posts: 144 Location: windham ct

Proposed law aims to lower Lyme disease rates
by Julie Weisberg

With the warmer weather now here, many residents are increasingly finding themselves outdoors.

But that outdoor activity, coupled with the rising spring temperatures, also means an increased risk of coming into contact with the deer tick, the carrier of Lyme disease, as the tick awakens from its winter dormancy.

In an attempt to battle and reduce the high incidence of the debilitating disease in Connecticut, area legislators, local health departments, medical doctors, and town officials — including Redding’s health department and First Selectman Natalie Ketcham — are putting their support behind a proposed bill currently moving its way through the General Assembly in Hartford to tackle the disease head on.

If approved, the new law would require the state Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Health and the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station to work together to formulate a statewide plan aimed at lowering Lyme infection rates. The DEP would be the lead agency for the project.

The bill, “An Act Concerning the Control of Lyme Disease” (HB 5852), was unanimously approved by the General Assembly’s Appropriations Committee last week.

It has since been referred to the Office of Legislative Research and Office of Fiscal Analysis for additional research on the bill’s financial cost and legal impact before it is introduced to the General Assembly as a whole.

If the bill does not reach the floor of the state House and Senate for a vote before the current legislative session ends May 7, the bill’s supporters in Hartford will be forced to reintroduce the legislation all over again in the next session.

Significant change

But while the proposed bill was overwhelmingly approved by the Appropriations Committee, that approval came only after a significant change was made to its language.

Many animal rights activists and others had raised concerns that specific wording in the bill as it was originally proposed could prompt a dramatic spike in deer hunting across the state.

Those critics pointed to a specific passage in the bill that, if approved, the new law would require that “necessary measures” be taken to “achieve and maintain deer populations at a level that significantly reduces the occurrence of Lyme disease and restores forest health, increases public awareness concerning the critical role of deer in perpetuating the Lyme disease epidemic, and provides assistance to municipalities to achieve and maintain such goals.”

Many of the bill’s critics argued that language could lead to many towns and cities opening their lands to increased deer hunting as a “necessary measure” to lower their area’s deer tick populations.

In a compromise to keep the legislation moving forward, the language was removed from the bill before the Appropriations Committee’s approval last week.

Pleased

Redding resident Mike Gorfinkle, the head of Connecticut No Arrows or Bullets (CT-NAB) — a grassroots organization that opposes the use of deer hunting to reduce Lyme disease — said he was pleased the language regarding deer population control has been removed.

Mr. Gorfinkle, an engineer, said his own research and that of others has led him to question any direct correlation between dense deer populations and an increased incidence of Lyme disease infections in an area.

“This is very complex, and there are a lot of factors,” Mr. Gorfinkle said of the spread of the bacteria that causes Lyme disease. “The proponents want to kill deer. They don’t want to listen to science ... they have already jumped to conclusions.”

Mr. Gorfinkle has argued that the most effective way to reduce the density of infected ticks and Lyme disease risk is to target the small animals that carry ticks — mice, chipmunks and shrews — “with proven tickicides.”

But Georgina Scholl, Redding resident and research chair of the Fairfield County Municipal Deer Management Alliance, said while she believes deer management is a key component in reducing the number of Lyme disease infections, state agencies and their team of experts should be allowed to review the research, and formulate the best multipronged plan to tackle the problem based on their conclusions.

“The first step is to allow the state to do its job,” Dr. Scholl, a physician, said. “It’s about keeping populations safe and happy, and in balance.”

And while the deer management alliance has gone on record in support of deer management as an effective tool in containing the spread of the disease, Dr. Scholl — who also is a member of the Connecticut Coalition to Eradicate Lyme Disease (CCELD) — said the most important aspect of the proposed bill, the creation of a statewide policy regarding Lyme disease, is “still intact” regardless of the recent change in its language.

“Our coalition feels that that is the job of the state,” she said of determining the best way to battle the epidemic. “Up to now, these agencies have been working independently of one another ... and the primary goal [of the bill] is to make the state responsible.”

A mistake

State Rep. Jason Bartlett, a co-sponsor of the bill, said it was a mistake to remove the language regarding deer population control, and if the bill does reach the House and Senate floors, that wording should be reinserted into the proposed legislation.

“Deer management is a component of that [reducing Lyme disease], and should be considered. It should be part of what we study,” Mr. Bartlett said. “It was very shortsighted to remove that from the bill.”

Steve Patton of the Nature Conservancy, however, said while the deer management language may still be reinserted into the bill before a wider vote in the assembly, the entire process has been another front in the battle against controlling the spread of the disease.

“The bill in itself is an important step in moving this process along,” Mr. Patton said, adding that if the bill is eventually passed, the state should “take into consideration all of the tools” that might help reduce deer tick numbers.

Mr. Patton said the Conservancy had supported the original version of the bill because of the organization’s concern that deer overpopulation has led to the declining health of many portions of the state’s forests. The legislation’s original language had included maintaining forest health as part of the consideration in developing a statewide deer management policy.

“The issue of Lyme disease is certainly related to deer ... but our goal is to restore the health of the forest,” Mr. Patton said.

Part of solution

State Rep. John Stripp (R-135), another of the bill’s 17 co-sponsors, said while many factors contribute to the spread of Lyme disease in Connecticut, the state should still consider the use of deer management as part of a multipronged solution to lowering Lyme disease infection rates.

“Like everything in nature, it’s a question of keeping some sort of balance,” Mr. Stripp said.

He added that if deer management is determined to be an important factor in reducing the spread of the deer tick that carries the disease, hunting would be a far more environmentally friendly method of reducing ticks than other measures, such as the use of pesticides.

“I wouldn’t be very much in favor of that,” Mr. Stripp said.

“Regardless of the bill, the Department of Public Health needs to do more to educate people on the source of ticks and how Lyme can be prevented by entire communities,” said Dr. Scholl.

“The public health department expects us to protect ourselves from Lyme, be constantly aware and as vigilant as if living with the daily threat of terrorism. They put all the onus on prevention on the individual to protect themselves.” Dr. Scholl feels this is wrong. “This message from the DPH has so far failed to prevent a rising number of cases of Lyme. It is simply not working.”

Although she is not a co-sponsor, state Senator Judith Freedman (R-26) voted in favor of the bill as a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Quint's Revenge · Joined: 29 May 2007 Posts: 239 Location: West Haven

This may be a smoke screen. The state is more concerned with deer vs. car incidents and keeping insurance rates down. Or,don't be suprised if the state is shopping what timber we have for profit. That may explain the sudden concern over our deer woods.
Other states have propsed these same things and after being passed the hidden agendas surfaced.

I personally will watch this very closely.
_________________
Ladies and gentleman take my advice.... pull down your pants and slide on the ice.