by SolonPol, 11/01/11 11:55 AM
Biker has trouble seeing the evidence, makes a few faulty assumptions and deems culling to be the only practical method. I see the same old plan with a new comprehensive label so I see this lazy misleading form of local govt as not pracitical. No offense to Biker, I'm sure he isn't meaning to support midocrity, he just likes his tomatoes, someone should get him some deer netting and a dog.
Since Biker's recent arguments are buried so deep in the thread, let me repeat them here and point out a few things!
Biker said "4900.1.2.1.188.8.131.52.1.1.1. Not practical by SolonBiker, 11/01/11 2:13 AM Re: ..BIG BUCK'S..!!.. by bubbaburgers, 11/01/11 2:13 AM
The light system seems to require loud and unpleasant artificial screeching noises. Maybe that works out in the middle of Montana ... but I'm guessing people in Solon would not want to line all our roads with loud screeching noises to save a few deer. "
Where did you get this false info / assumption? At the deer expo that you and no one from the local govt attended, they had one of these devices. The older version would not be heard inside a home or over traffic noise. The new version was barely audible to most people in a quiet auditorum.
Biker said "As for the contraception, I have yet to see evidence it's practical. I see a smattering of stories. Some say 80% effective in year 1, but down to below 50% effective in year 2. Then the stories say you need to capture the deer to administer, you need to tag the deer. So you get a per deer cost of $1,000 and a questionable to diminishing return in the out years. And an ongoing program and more expense than what we're talking about."
Again, not sure where he got his info, but apparently it wasn't the same info I provided him that he requested. The old method was to capture, the new method is to dart them, no more complicated than sharpshooting and no more expensive.
Alternative methods work on all the deer, killing only works on those that are killed. You kill a deer, the other deer have more fawns at a higher rate because there is less competition for food. You dart a deer and they don't have fawns no matter how much food there is.
Biker says "Until I see clear cut evidence that these alternative "comprehensive" methods can work, and do so effectively, I'd rather see Solon resume culling."
Actually wrong word there, should have used "non-lethal". The problem with the word "comprehensive" is that the city is using it on the same old killing plan, don't change the name, change the plan.
We have a circular argument here, there is convincing evidence that you won't see, so you won't be convinced until you see it here in Solon, and because the city is passing off the same old plan under a new name you won't see it here. Pass Issue 94 and you'll force them to get creative, to try new things, and you will be pleasently surprised that we, like other even more progressive cities, can have our deer, and our cars and our tomatoes.
Biker says "If -- a few years from now -- there's a body of evidence saying we can get the same results (fewer deer, fewer accidents, less devastated ecosystem) at a lower cost without culling ... then by all means, we can adjust. "
There will never be a local body of evidence, this killing plan, if allowed to start, will never ever stop, it would not have stopped if the city realized how much flack they'd recieve in restarting. The city may be many things, but they aren't stone cold dumb, they will never repeat tha mistake of stopping the killing.
Biker said " But right now, that's just a fairy tale, so I stick with my desire to move forward on the culling."
We're not "moving forward", we're repeating failed history and then we'll wonder why we didn't get different results. "Moving forward" would be to truly have a "comprehensive" plan, not the same old plan with a new name.
Stop the insanity, raise the bar, force the city to think, save money, vote YES on 94!