This editorial was so uninformed that Councilman Russo took an opportunity to "correct" it. The editorial recommended that Contraception be used with Culling. A simple reading of the plan or following this issue at all would yield the answer that Contraception is not legal in Ohio. The ODOW regulates is use and has no incentive to allow it as it could reduce hunting.
It has other factual errors too.
It states that the city would "hire experienced hunters", again reading the plan you can see that the city is hiring sharpshooters, but not paying hunters to kill. On one hand we hear that the hunters will be strongly regulated, on the other we hear that the USDA feels that we are "over regulating" so a sentence was added to the version of the plan included in the legislation (but not posted on the web) that we'd follow ODOW rules, which are more lax than those first proposed.
They "applaud" the city's developing a "comprehensive" plan, yet reading it you quickly see all the non-lethal methods are dismissed.
They say the city's plan could be "doomed" if voters pass the Deer Preservation Act. They don't seem to be very aware of the act or the plan.
They mention, in a patronizing tone, that no one wants to see "Bambi" killed, this rhetoric doesn't recognize the many reasons that the plan makes no sense, namely
- Necessity - how is it determined that we have "too many".
- Effectiveness - rebound and migration from neighboring cities makes any killing program a fool's errand.
- Cost - don't we have better ways of spending $200K per year?
That's three logical reasons that have nothing to do with the beauty of the creature. Deer advocates have real reasons for not wanting the city to continue its failed program, and its not a Disney movie.