The National Park Service (NPS) and Fire Island National Seashore (FINS) recently published a report "Deer Research on Fire Island." The report highlights the dramatic increase in deer population: "In 1974, Fire Island's deer head was estimated at 50 individuals; by 1989 it was close to 500; and in 2003, it was estimated to be 500-700. From population density studies concluded over the past seven years, it is estimated that 300-500 deer now live on Fire Island." The report further states, "from 1993-2009 the NPS conducted a long-term research project...to determine whether an immunocontraceptive vaccine can be useful on Fire Island as deer management tool."

The numbers above speak for themselves. I conducted one of two baiting stations in Seaview during this project. The Seaview community has experienced a dramatic reduction of deer as a result of the project which was discontinued two years ago by FINS with no explanation.

The dramatic or lack of increase of deer in the involved communities is the direct result of this program. What hasn't the FINS and the NPS published the results of this successful study? Why would FINS and the NPS publish a card handed out at visitor centers and meetings throughout Fire Island entitled "coexisting with wildlife" which deals only with deer? The card included the following "the white-tailed deer population has grown over the years." The NPS is conducting research to measure the deer population and determine whether a birth control vaccine can be a useful deer management tool on Fire Island.

Why has FINS not seen fit to elaborate on the success of the program? Why has FINS stopped the program throughout Fire Island? Why is the FINS going to the public requesting comments for a future deer management plan without adequately informing the public about what the immunocontraceptive program has accomplished and why in fact have we seen the deer population not only not rise but fall? The volunteers who worked with this program for many years are not involved in the planning process and have been deliberately excluded. Why?

The success of the immunocontraceptive program must be made known and the results published. There is no point in moving forward with a new deer management plan if we don't understand and discuss what the prior plan and actions have accomplished.

Norman Steele

Seaview

Paula Valentine Responds

For several years now, Fire Island National Seashore has been in the process of preparing a new General Management Plan and its associated Environmental Impact Statement. The park's new GMP will replace the current document approved in 1977, and is intended to provide guidance for the management of FINS for the next 10 to 20 years. The content of the new GMP is particularly important since the park is so complex, and includes not only significant natural, cultural and recreational resources, but also Fire Island's 17 preexisting communities and an entire county park within its boundaries! The array of federal, state and local laws and regulations that apply to Fire Island are often at odds with National Park Service mandates and policies. Deciding on an appropriate level of recreational facilities or protection measures for Seashore property is being considered in the GMP, along with analyzing strategies for transportation, land use and other issues on private lands within park boundaries. Finding the "right" balance is important to park managers today, and a viable GMP is important to the future of Fire Island.

Hopefully, many Fire Island News readers have participated in FINS' GMP process. It started off with public scoping in 2006, then numerous stakeholder workshops between 2006 and 2010. In 2009, photos and opinions were solicited during the "Vision Fire Island" on-line exercise, and in 2010 the opportunity to respond to a set of Draft Preliminary Management Alternatives was available. Over this coming winter, FINS invites you to review and comment on additional GMP/EIS documents and other important FINS park planning efforts.

A preliminary list of William Floyd Estate planning alternatives will be available for review by mid-Sept. See full version of response online.