Solon Suns Editorial Recomendation

Solon Sun keeps up its poor reputation for uninfomred editorializing with its recent Oct 13th endorsement to vote "NO on Issue 94 in Solon"...  Here is their editorial along with the corrections in red.


"What happens when you replace logic with emotion?"

Who are they talking about?  They think they are talking about deer proponents, but it is the culling proponents who are being emotional and moving forward despite not having the numbers of deer and DVAs as required in their new Deer Mgt Plan, see the How Many? post.

You get an ill-conceived ballot measure such as the Deer Preservation Act.

When the elected Solon officials consistently ignore the will of many residents to make use of modern methods, humane, and technology rather than slaughtering animals, then you get the voters exercising their constructional rights to do what their elected leaders failed to do.

Voters need to realize how harmful this would be to the community and say NO to Issue 94.

Voters need to realize that current methods are an expensive failure with its own set of serious safety risks and voting YES on Issue 94 is the only way to force elected officials to seek more effective, humane methods.

Proponents of the Deer Preservation Act cite the high costs incurred by the city through culling as a main argument against lethal methods to control the deer population.  Yes, it has cost Solon roughly $1 million over several years,

High costs are one of the arguments and it is an objective factual argument, where is the emotionalism the editor falsely accuses the proponents of?

but when the culling was done, the deer population was reduced to a manageable level.

Where is the evidence to support this subjective conclusion?  What is a "manageable level?"

That drastically reduced the number of car-deer crashes [DVAs] in the city, which also reduced the total personal expense to drivers resulting from these crashes.

Killing deer allows the survivors to cross the road resulting in crashes.  DVA determents, a non-lethal, humane, effective, and cheaper method, prevents ALL deer from crossing the road when oncoming traffic approaches. 

Passage of Issue 94 would prohibit the city from doing any sort of culling to control the deer population.

This will force the city for the first time in 7 years to seriously consider more effective, less costly, humane solutions that they have not considered (other than lip service) to date.

This will cause the number of deer to soar over 1,000, meaning more deer will be jumping into our roads.

Where did this number come from?  No count of deer or DVA's was done this year before the decision was made to go forward with killing.  This also does not take into account that culling causes rebound effect requiring more killing to prevent a "soaring" population.

Issue 94 proponents claim culling is inhumane,

IT IS!  And the new killing methods in the Deer Mgt Plan, bow hunting and captive bolt are even more cruel and inhumane.

but is it humane to have a rapidly growing deer population starving to death because there is only so much foliage to go around?

The facts and even the reports from Solon's former killing agents don't bear out this emotional accusation.

We don't think so.

The Editors didn't think period, they simply repeated city propaganda without interviewing or analyzing the opposing point of view, a poor excuse for journalism.

Don't fall for emotional, city propaganda, or phony logic, VOTE YES on Issue 94, to stop this needless wasteful, inhumane fool's errand of endless killing.