Response to PA Game Commission by Jay Kirkpatrick, Ph.D., January, 2007

(In the Bucks County Courier Times, January 15, 2007 the following letter by
Jerry Feaser, Press Secretary for the Pennsylvania Game Commission appeared.
Because of space constraints, the paper could not publish the response of Jay
Kirkpatrick, Ph.D., a prize winning wildlife researcher with more than 20
years experience in the filed of contraception and wildlife reproduction.
His response in its entirety follows Feaser's letter.)

The game commission is responsible for conserving and managing all wild
birds and mammals in Pennsylvania and conducts many wildlife conservation
programs for the public. Despite these efforts that benefit all
Pennsylvanians, it is true that the agency does not receive any state tax
payer funds and is supported by hunters¹ dollars.

However, it is not true that the commission does not sterilize deer because
hunters do not want fewer deer. Hunters have successfully reduced deer
populations in most rural areas. When addressing deer conflicts in more
developed areas, the agency and hunters have maintained a consistent effort
to reduce deer populations with hunting and non-hunting options.

Recent research has concluded that it is unlikely that using the current
sterilization methods alone will reduce the free-ranging deer population
that exists throughout Pennsylvania, including lower Bucks County. In
addition, fertility control is limited to experimental situations because
the FDA has not ruled the drugs safe and effective for use in wildlife and
are not available for use with free-ranging deer. Sterilization also is
expensive with an estimated cost of up to $1,000 per deer. Research also
suggests that use of hunting, alone or in combination with other management
actions, may be the only way to effectively reduce free-ranging deer
populations.

As part of our urban deer management plan, the Game Commission is developing
a written policy on fertility control and will update the policy as science
and research provides new information. For the game commission, the choice
is clear: hunting costs communities nothing, and is the best option when
compared to an unproven, experimental procedure that is cost prohibitive.

Jerry Feaser
Press Secretary
Pennsylvania Game Commission


I shall respond...(to Feaser's letter on "sterilization." ) That said, or
written, please keep in mind that journalism regarding this subject has
been, for a decade or more, embarrassingly shabby, inaccurate and misleading
and for the most part reflects a lot of passionate opinions and theories but
little of factual substance.

At the outset, I would like to make two points clear. First, I do not
advocate the use of contraception for deer, at Tyler Park or anywhere else.
I merely convey facts, data, and scientifically-supported conclusions. Urban
and suburban deer problems are local issues and it is not my domain to
advocate any management approach outside my home city here in Billings. The
Tyler deer are someone else's deer and someone else is responsible for
decisions about their management. Second, I do not deal in opinions. I deal
only in facts, derived from controlled studies, appropriate analysis and
peer-reviewed published data. With that stated, let's examine the article's
salient points.

To begin with, "sterilization" is an inaccurate and misleading term.
Contraception, which is what the debate is all about, is reversible
fertility inhibition, but not sterilization. Spaying is sterilization;
neutering is sterilization, but condoms, pills, diaphragms, IUDs, and
immunocontraception (vaccines) are reversible and by definition,
contraception. The paper's editors, and both authors should be more careful
about their use of inaccurate terms.

Mr. Feaser's letter is a masterpiece of hyperbole, misinformation and
dissembling. First, he makes no distinction between urban/suburban deer and
rural deer and the contraceptive technology, which was developed only for
deer herds where traditional management methods are not deemed legal, wise,
safe or publicly acceptable. The failure to make this clear at the outset
pits the hunting community against the broad concept of management by
contraception.

Second, Mr. Feaser contends that "...the agency have maintained a consistent
effort to reduce deer populations with hunting and non-hunting options." We
all understand hunting, but I, at least, am unaware of the non-hunting
efforts to reduce deer populations. He had every right to make this
assertion, but then should be compelled to explain what those non-hunting
efforts are.

Next he states "Recent research has concluded that it is unlikely that using
current sterilization [sic] methods alone will reduce the free-ranging deer
population that exists throughout Pennsylvania, including lower Bucks
County." This sentence is filled with hyperbole and distractions from the
issues at hand. First, he continues to label reversible contraception as
"sterilization" and that is really not a terribly complex construct. Second,
he once again mixes the rural deer population of all of Pennsylvania and
Bucks County with discrete urban/suburban populations, apparently in an
attempt to mislead. At no time, at no venue, have I or any other scientist
involved in wildlife contraception suggested that contraception (or
sterilization!) could solve "Pennsylvania's or Bucks County's deer
population" problems. The technology in question was developed for discrete
urban/suburban populations where traditional lethal methods are not deemed
legal, wise, safe or publicly acceptable.

Second, he cites no references for this "research". I, on the other hand,
will be happy to cite the results of actual research. Naugle at al. 2002.
Reproduction (Suppl. 60): 143-153 reports on a deer contraceptive project
being conducted on Fire ISland National Seashore (FINS), for the National
Park Service. There are about 15 communities interspersed along the National
Seashore's 30 mile length and thus far immunocontraception has reduced the
population by approximately 60%. That's not an opinion. That's fact. So that
I may not be accused of hyperbole too, let me make it clear here that
contraception is not a good way to quickly reduce a population of deer, or
any long-lived species. It can achieve zero population growth relatively
fast but it takes some time to actually reduce the population, but it can -
and has - been done. Next, one might go read Rutberg et al. 2004. Biological
Conservation 116:243-250. This peer-reviewed paper describes a deer
contraceptive project being conducted for the U. S. Department of Commerce's
National Institute of Standards and Technology, in Gaithersburg, MD. This
population of deer has been reduced by approximately 40% through the
exclusive use of contraception. I could cite several other papers but these
will suffice for now. Incidentally, although it hasn't been published yet,
the Gaithersburg data also indicates a decrease in deer-car collisions
coincident with the reduction in deer population as a result of
contraception.

There have been many other deer contraceptive projects, conducted by other
government agencies (USDA) and academic institutions and proprietary
companies, but none have been conducted longitudinally, over long periods of
time, and at the population level. These other studies have tested safety,
efficacy, and so forth, but not population effects.

Now Mr. Feaser next moves on the foil that most opponents use to discredit
deer contraception. He states that "...FDA has not ruled the drugs safe and
effective for wildlife..." and that they have to be used "experimentally".
That is true as far as it goes, but Mr. Feaser fails to tell the entire
story, and in doing this misrepresents what is actually going on. At least
at present FDA is the regulatory authority for wildlife contraceptives (that
responsibility will be shifted to the EPA, probably within the next 12
months). The usual procedure for the development of a new drug within FDA is
to generate "pilot" data, which provides some reasonable but no ultimate
data regarding safety and then apply for something referred to as an
Investigational New Animal Drug (INAD) exemption. THis document, which
exists for the immunocontraceptive in question here, "authorizes" the use of
the drug by the FDA, in experimental settings. This is almost exactly what
takes place with new cancer drugs for humans. Relatively few cancer drugs
utilized for human medicine are FDA "approved" but rather they are used
"experimentally". Thus, the FDA has deemed the immunocontraceptive in
question as safe enough to use experimentally and we use it under FDA
authorization. Now, the second step for the development of a commercial drug
is, if no problems emerge from the use under the INAD, to move from an INAD
to something known as an New Animal Drug Application (NADA). This step
requires millions of dollars and many many years of additional research. We
have never taken this step, for several reasons. First, there is no promise
of financial return for a wildlife contraceptive. The market is just too
small, thus the investment of millions of dollars just won't happen. Second,
it was our philosophy that because most of the research on this
immunocontraceptive (something known as porcine zona pellucida vaccine, or
PZP) was originally funded with public money, over 35 years, the outcome of
that research already belongs to the public and should not be used to
generate profit for a proprietary company. That is a private philosophy,
common to our research group and certainly not a universal attitude among
scientists. In any case, we took steps to make sure the native PZP cannot be
patented for use in wildlife and continue to use it under the FDA INAD. That
is a far cry from Mr. Feaser's gaunt description.

Now let's add to that, that this vaccine has been around for about 35 years
and much of the research focused on human contraception. It never made it to
that market because (1) no one has been able to synthesize the product; it
must be laboriously produced by what we refer to as "bench chemistry" on a
very small scale. The failure to produce a synthetic form of the vaccine
meant that a large human market could never be serviced. We labor here to
manufacture about 5,000 doses a year. The second reason it never made it to
the human market was the variability in the time for the antifertility
effects to reverse. We see that all the time, in wild horses and deer and
about 100 species of zoo animals that are currently under treatment. All the
pharmaceutical companies could see was litigation. Neither of those
constraints represent a safety issue, after 35 years.

Let's examine the safety issue just a little bit more. The vaccine has been
used on the wild horses of Assateague Island National Seashore, in Maryland,
for 18 years now, and what safety issues have arisen? Well, first, the body
condition scores of the population have increased significantly (see Turner
and Kirkpatrick. 2002. Reproduction. (Suppl. 60):187-195), mortality has
decreased significantly (same paper), the vaccine has proven to be safe to
give to pregnant animals (see Kirkpatrick et al. 1991. J. Reprod. Fert.
(Suppl. 44) 321-325), doesn't cause changes in seasonal birth patterns or
the health of foals born to treated mothers (see Kirklpatrick et al. J.
Appl. Anim. Welfare Sci. 6:301-308) and has extended the longevity of the
treated horses by more than 10 years (see Kirkpatrick and Turner 2002. J.
Reprod. Fert. (Suppl. 60): 197-202; Kirkpatrick and Turner 2007. Zoo Biol.
25:1-8), nor have any behavioral changes been noted (see Powell 1999. J.
Appl. Anim. Welfare Sci. 2:321-335) nor have there been any deleterious
physiological changes regarding the ovary or endocrine system (see
Kirkpatrick et al. 1995. Biol. Reprod. Monograph Series I: Equine
Reproduction VI: 411-418; Powell and Monfort 2001. J. Appl. Anim. Welfare
Sci. 4:271-284) I could go on, and cite dozens of other papers regarding the
use and safety of this vaccine in other species (some 50 of them, including
a lot of primates) but I think the point is made. Finally, the vaccine is a
protein and ninth grade biology students who are paying attention in class
know that proteins can't pass through the food chain. Does this all sound
unsafe?

This explanation is a far cry from Mr. Feaser's attempt to use a sound byte,
but that is what is necessary if we are to truly understand what is going
on. While I must live with sound bytes and slogans from my politicians, I
don't intend to accept that form of discourse in the scientific world. Let's
move on.

Next. Mr. Feaser tackles the economic dimensions of deer contraception. He
quotes a figure of $1,000 per deer. The cost of the vaccine is $21/dose (we,
by law, must provide it at our cost of production, with no profit), the dart
costs about $1.50, and the bulk of the labor to do the darting is where the
real cost lies. Costs will vary from site to site, depending on who is doing
the work and what they are paid. If you want to pay someone $80,000 a year
to dart deer, the cost will be high; if you want to use trained volunteers
the cost is less; if you use employees already employed by a park, or
agency, or whatever, the cost is somewhere between. I actually can't say
what the costs would be in any given site because of these variables, but I
kept the books for the first two years of the Fire Island project and the
costs never exceeded $10,000. That included a two or three air fares from
Ohio and Montana to New York, and we treated about 150 deer. My math shows
that to come out to about $66/deer. I wonder who estimated the $1,000 per
deer.

Now Mr. Feaser goes on to say that "Research also suggests that the use of
hunting alone or in combination with other management actions, may be the
only way to effectively reduce free-ranging deer populations". If Mr. Feaser
is talking about the deer in Potter County, or even all of Bucks County, I
might agree, but we are not talking about the deer in Potter County or all
of Bucks County. we are still talking about discrete urban/suburban deer
populations. This is one more attempt to confuse the issues. And, if Mr.
Feaser bothers to read the papers cited above, he knows that his statement
is not factual.

He closes with descriptions of deer contraception as unproven (not accurate-
see above), experimental (true, see above) and cost prohibitive (not
accurate, see above).

I am not dismayed by the passion that accompanies this subject, nor am I
dismayed if a community chooses not to use contraception. That is local
business and not mine. What does upset me, is knowingly manipulating
information, hyperbole, attempts to frighten people with skewed information
and an anti-intellectual approach to debates that excludes facts and data
and substitute opinion. Does any of that sound familiar on a larger scale?

Incidentally, lest anyone attempts to pigeonhole me in some social activist
group, I have hunted deer for most of my life and I started in Bucks County
more than 50 years ago.

You have my permission to share this response with anyone, but I certainly
believe the editorial board of the newspaper in question should be required
to see in just what kind of journalism they are participating.


Jay F. Kirkpatrick, Ph.D.
Director
The Science and Conservation Center
2100 South Shiloh Road
Billings, MT 59106
406-652-9719


Lecture Series, October, November, 2006

Compassionate Science:
The Evolution and Future of Wildlife Contraception
by world renowned scientist,

Jay Kirkpatrick, Ph.D.