The Town of Southold Deer Cull: Whose Will Is It?

As has been reported on the Patch, a lawsuit was filed this week in Suffolk County Supreme Court to stop the controversial culling and mass slaughtering of deer to be carried out by the Town of Southold, under the fervent and irresponsible direction of Town Supervisor Scott Russell.  This week the court in that case issued a temporary restraining order preventing the cull from proceeding pending a hearing of the motion.  Showing an apparent reckless disregard for the Town, Mr. Russell remains undeterred in pursuing his cull and has reportedly indicated he would proceed with it notwithstanding the court order.  

Putting aside that Mr. Russell has repeatedly proclaimed that he speaks for the overwhelming majority of Southold residents when in fact it is now clear that he speaks for himself (and the Town Board), ignoring the clear voice of many of his constituents in pursuit of an agenda that is uniquely and misguidedly his own, his most recent reported pronouncement (if true) that the deer cull will proceed irrespective of a court order risks exposing the Town to monetary sanctions and liability at the taxpayers’ expense.

Regardless of where Southold residents stand on the deer cull, the fact that Mr. Russell has apparently brazenly pronounced his commitment to violating a court order should cause all constituents to seriously question his judgment, temperament and fitness for office. Even if he has no intent to violate the court order, the manner in which he has sought to strong-arm his agenda to proceed with the cull should call into question the foregoing characteristics.  

In any event, since plans for the cull were first announced in the fall of 2013, I have been reading his statements online in which he has made plain his personal disdain for the presence of any deer on the North Fork and the cowardly way in which he governs, hiding behind the curtain of a closed town hall that prevents disclosure of facts and information that would shed light on the decision making process that Mr. Russell has repeatedly falsely represented reflect the views of a united Southold. While his Town Board may be united, the residents of Southold are not and his suggestion to the contrary is simply untrue.  

In discussing the vital importance of transparency in government, former Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis noted that “sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants….” In Mr. Russell’s government, town board decisions are best made under the cover of dark, where opaqueness and secrecy is embraced as the antidote to open government.

For example, during the last town meeting on February 12th, Mr. Russell relied on a recent environmental report that he claimed found no negative impact would result from his deer cull. When a resident at the meeting reportedly asked for a copy of the report, he was advised by the Board to file a request under the New York State Freedom of Information Act, knowing that requiring such a request would delay disclosure of the report which might be cited by opponents to the cull, either in court or other public forums, or might be used to help seek an injunction prior to the carrying out the mass slaughter of deer that he has stated will take place any day now. Clearly, the report, which Mr. Russell claims support his decision, could have been produced at the meeting without requiring such a formal request.

Notwithstanding Mr. Russell’s assertions to the contrary, he has not produced any evidence that Southold residents are “uniformly” behind his cull. Consistent with his authoritarian rule, carrying out what is clearly a controversial measure without disclosure to the public, he has stated that he will not disclose when, where and how his cull will be effectuated, once again showing his disdain for the rule of law, for the public’s right to know (and, yes, oppose government action if so inclined) and turning Justice Brandies call for transparency in government on its head.

There are three primary reasons that Mr. Russell has advanced in support of the cull: (1) damage to farm crops, (2) spread of tick borne diseases and (3) auto accidents involving deer. While deer undoubtedly cause some damage to Long Island crops, the estimate of over $3 million that has supposedly been put forth by the Long Island Farm Bureau (and relied on by Mr. Russell) has not been supported or validated by any report made available to the public. If crop damage is one of the primary reasons for the cull, you would think Mr. Russell would have released such information to help make his case. That said, even if such objective and credible data relative to crop damage  existed, I would maintain that the massacre of deer is wrong on so many levels that it could not be justified based on such criteria alone. As for the other stated reasons, there are a number of obvious counter arguments that could be made to easily dispel those myths, but for reasons of brevity they will not be stated here.

In terms of Mr. Russell’s claim that he enjoys the full support of the Town for his cull, the lawsuit, for one, proves otherwise, as does the daily posts on local blogs and the strong vocal opposition witnessed at the recent Town Board meeting. Moreover, what is clear, is that the cull represents one of the rare instances where hunters and those who oppose the cull in general are in agreement. Hunters are opposed to it because they believe that (1) their ability to harvest deer will be diminished by the reduction in the deer population and (2) they could effectively reduce the deer population with somewhat relaxed hunting laws.  Other opponents to the deer cull, which includes many hunters as well, believe that the mass execution and slaughter of deer is barbaric in its conception and simply not the best or a reasonable solution, even for those who believe there is a deer problem on the North Fork.

Having demonstrated that hunters, non-hunters and the majority of Southold residents are opposed to Mr. Russell’s deer cull, it is important not to ignore the economic impact and stigma the cull could have on the North Fork.  During peak season, the North Fork’s economy depends upon a vibrant influx of tourists, whether they are day-trippers or vacationers, who buy and consume fresh produce at the local farm markets, enjoy the local wineries, dine at the varied restaurants and shop at the eclectic stores, all of which contribute to making the North Fork such a special place to visit. The local economy will undoubtedly suffer a significant blow when families decide that they do not want to spend their dollars in a town that would sponsor the mass murder of any animals, let along deer. For as many people who detest deer, there are an equal number who embrace and enjoy their presence.

The slaughtering of deer on the North Fork, particularly after it occurs and the graphic, violent, disturbing and senseless manner in which it was carried out becomes public (and it will become public) will likely exact a significant economic toll that will reverberate through a fragile local economy that is still recovering from the Great Recession of 2008. In addition to the negative impact on tourism, home values will decline, as fewer primary and second home owners will look to make the North Fork the place where they wish to settle down or maintain a second home. Economics 101: Less demand means lower home prices. The tax base will similarly erode.

Returning full circle to Mr. Russell, what is clear, is that he supports is cull. What is equally apparent is that he is no friend of open government and is more bent on pursuing a personal crusade than he is to listening to his constituents who voted him into office and pay his generous salary. Perhaps had Mr. Russell gone to law school and worked for a law firm, as opposed to working as a legal assistant as indicated on the official Town Website, he would have a healthier respect for the rule of law. Perhaps, if he was a lawyer, he would have a better understanding that court orders, such as the currently pending temporary restraining order, which he reportedly has threatened to violate, cannot be disobeyed without risking the considerable pain of monetary sanctions, which ultimately would be passed on to Southold taxpayers. Moreover, by recklessly pursuing an agenda that many oppose, in addition to committing $25,000 for the cull, the Town will incur legal expenses in defense of the recently commenced lawsuit to prevent it from happening. Of course, the legal fees will be at the expense of town residents as well.   

Mr. Russell’s cull is ill-conceived and appears to be the product of ignorance and a misrepresentation of the facts. When local public officials no longer feel the need to respect their constituents, it is time for those officials to be voted out.