Opinion: Richard Amper on Kent shelter plans- ‘He doth protest too much!’

He doth protest too much!

This phrase from William Shakespeare’s play Hamlet has become a famously reliable method of determining if the arguments presented to defend a position ironically reveal the weakness of the argument. The phrase accurately characterizes Dick Amper’s impassioned ranting that Kent Animal Shelter does not meet the criteria for hardship under the ‘Compelling Public Need’ criteria of the Pine Barrens Protection Act. Indeed, his arguments convince many others and me that Kent does in fact meet the criteria.

Let’s look at the relevant section of the law, § 57-0121 (10)(b)(i):

(b) A person, the state or a public corporation shall be deemed to have established compelling public need if the applicant demonstrates, based on specific facts, one of the following:
(i) The proposed development will serve an essential health or safety need of the municipalities in the Central Pine Barrens such that the public health and safety require the requested waiver, that the public benefits from the proposed use are of a character that overrides the importance of the protection of the core preservation area as established in this article, that the proposed use is required to serve existing needs of the residents, and that no feasible alternatives exist outside the core preservation area to meet the established public need and that no better alternatives exist within the county;

Eligibility for Hardship
First, at the hearing before the Pine Barrens Commission Mr. Amper tried to imply only a governmental entity could have standing to request such a hardship. Clearly incorrect, as the first sentence of the law extends this right to any “person, the state or a public corporation.”

He doth protest too much!

Essential Health or Safety Need
Second, Mr. Amper tried to argue that Kent Animal Shelter doesn’t “serve an essential health or safety need of the municipalities.” Au Contraire, in fact the Town Board of the Town of Riverhead (one of the municipalities in the Pine Barrens) has entered into the record a resolution stating clearly that the services provided by Kent Animal Shelter do in fact provide ‘essential health and safety need’, specifically the unique services Kent provides to help control and manage the feral cat population. At the hearing, Kent provided evidence that they have treated over 1,000 feral cats with services ranging from neutering and vaccinations for rabies and toxoplasmosis. You are not at liberty to disregard this proof of essential need from one of municipalities, in favor of empty arguments to the contrary. Kent serves an essential health and safety need of the municipality.

He doth protest too much!

Public Health or Safety Benefit
Third, Mr. Amper tried to argue there in no public health or safety benefit derived from Kent’s services for feral cats, yet the resolution of the Town Board of the Town of Riverhead clearly states that a public health and safety benefit is provided. Does Mr. Amper have standing to speak for the residents of the Town of Riverhead? I think not, this is the purpose of duly elected officials and they have done so in the affirmative. Let’s examine the public health risks:

Rabies: The risk of rabies is very real. There have been two documented cases of rabies in Suffolk County, both from raccoons. Feral cats and raccoons occupy similar environmental niches (See: Raccoon-proofing feral cat feeding stations) and often fight as anyone that has been awaked in the night by the raucous can attest. So concerned are governmental agencies that a program to bait raccoons to inoculate them has been initiated by Suffolk County Department of Health Services, New York State Department of Health, Cornell University, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services. Who’s addressing feral cats? Only Kent Animal Shelter.

Toxoplasmosis:

-From the Mayo Clinic: Toxoplasma gondii (T. gondii) is a single-celled parasitic organism that can infect most animals and birds. Because it reproduces only in cats, wild and domestic felines are the parasite’s ultimate host. Under causes, the Mayo Clinic states:
• You may accidentally ingest the parasites if you touch your mouth after gardening, cleaning a litter box or touching anything that has come in contact with infected cat feces. Cats who hunt or who are fed raw meat are most likely to harbor T. gondii.

-From the Centers for Disease Control: “How is toxoplasmosis spread? Cats play an important role in the spread of toxoplasmosis. They become infected by eating infected rodents, birds, or other small animals.”

“On the risk to pregnant women and infants: How can Toxoplasma affect my unborn child? If you are newly infected with Toxoplasma while you are pregnant, or just before pregnancy, then you can pass the infection on to your baby. You may not have any symptoms from the infection. Most infected infants do not have symptoms at birth but can develop serious symptoms later in life, such as blindness or mental disability. Occasionally infected newborns have serious eye or brain damage at birth.”

So, leading medical, public health, and safety institutions have provided information that document the fact that this organism ONLY reproduces in cats (wild and domestic) and is most prevalent in wild cats and those that hunt or eat raw meat. Kent is actively treating both types of cats, but the ONLY facility treating feral (wild) cats. Strike One.

People can come in contact with this organism by contact with feces while gardening. (Yes, feral cats poop in your garden.) Mr. Amper dramatically stated it’s impossible to get this disease because feral cats “are running away from you.” This clearly shows he doesn’t understand the disease or feral cats. Strike Two.

Last and most important, the public health risk to pregnant women and infants. The impacts of this disease can be devastating, including blindness, mental disability, eye and brain damage, according to the CDC.

Really, Mr. Amper? Can you morally take a stand that this development, which reduces the environmental impact of its operations, presents a risk to the Pine Barrens that outweighs the public health risks described above for infants?

Mr. Amper argued that there have been no cases of this disease in Suffolk County, to which I must ask how many damaged infants would make it acceptable to grant the exemption. Is the bar so high for this exemption that a victim must be produced, or is reducing this terrible risk sufficient? The answer is clear. The services Kent Animal Shelter provides for feral cats help reduce this risk! Strike Three; sit down Mr. Amper, and shame on you for putting your own self-interests ahead of the health of pregnant women and infants.

He doth protest too much!

Protection of the Core Preservation Area
Fourth and finally, Mr. Amper argues that somehow the Kent project is going to threaten the ‘cleanest source of drinking water in New York State.’  This is nonsense, and anyone that understands hydrogeology and environmental technology knows it.

First, from a hydrogeological perspective, any water recharged or discharged on the Kent property ends up in the Peconic River, with the vast majority eventually entering the marine environment of the Peconic Bay.

Kent has been providing their essential services for 46 years at this location and their old cesspools provide little treatment. Their proposal includes an upgraded sanitary system, approved by the county health department and other improvements like a naturally vegetative buffer along the Peconic to reduce run-off impacts. These improvements reduce the environmental impact.

So, contrary to Mr. Amper’s claims that the Kent project does not “override the importance of the protection of the Core Preservation Area,” it is in fact consistent with the protections and has been recognized as such with permits from both the county health department for its sanitary system, and the state Department of Environmental Conservation for its development in proximity to fresh water wetlands and the state-designated Peconic River under the Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers Act.

In fact, the impact is very small, when viewed within the context of other developments along the Peconic River, and I think it is unfair to ask a small non-profit organization like Kent to install unproven, unlicensed, expensive research project sewage facilities as has been suggested. These systems should be developed and tested on governmental facilities and proven before asking private entities to use them. If Pine Barrens Society is so keen on them, perhaps they should install one at their aged facility on the banks of the Peconic River.

He doth protest too much!

In summary, I’m distressed that I felt compelled to write this letter, most specifically that it was required to refute the hyperbole provided by one man. This spectacle is why I believe most people have lost respect for our political system, where a special interest group can tie our government in knots.

This case is not complicated, and the public sees the right thing to do very clearly. This is a case of common sense. Kent is a good and honorable organization. They’ve done what is required of them to prove they deserve the hardship exemption under ‘compelling public need.’ They’ve gone the extra mile to minimize environmental impact. The municipality in which they operate has validated their services as essential. The public health risk their services help reduce are intolerable.

Stand up for what is right, restore some faith in our government, and approve Kent’s application.

George A. Goode has a bachelor’s of science degree in biology and a master’s of science degree in environmental technology. He lives in Baiting Hollow.

Editor’s note: The “In MY Opinion” column is open to anyone who wants to submit a viewpoint on any topic. The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the point of view of RiverheadLOCAL’s publishers. We welcome submissions. Be sure to include your email address and daytime phone number. Click here to submit your opinion.