Saturday, October 29, 2011

No One Does What Solon Does


No One Does What Solon Does

by SolonPol, 10/29/11 3:55 AM 
Re: Vote YES on Issue 94 by SolonPol, 10/29/11 3:55 AM
NO ONE, not even the MetroParks. They don't overpay "professional" killers $500+ per deer. They have their own rangers do the shooting. It isn't free, but it isn't outrageously expensive either.

Metroparks can "hunt" because they have very large tracts of land, Solon DOESN'T. Solon has to have cops babysit the (paid or unpaid) hunters, MetroParks uses more rangers.

Some nearby cities just do hunting. It's cheaper (NOT FREE), but they have much larger lot sizes than Solon does, so they aren't subjected to the large risks that Solon is.

Strike one, two, and three. NOT!


Strike one, two, and three. NOT!

by SolonPol, 10/29/11 3:43 AM 
Re: Vote YES on Issue 94 by SolonPol, 10/29/11 3:43 AM
SolonPol writes: "Solon has refused to consider non-lethal methods, see upcoming post. With 5 years of failure with lethal methods, its time to force the city to into a different direction." 

SolonBiker writes "I have to disagree with this. Non-lethal has never been proven to work or be cost effective. We've seen a parade of ludicrous money pits paraded before us. None of them work. From street reflectors to contraception to food parks for deer. Strike one, two, and three." 

0) It's never been proven because the city has REFUSED to try. Other's have tried and succeeded. Issue 94 changes that. 

1) Street reflectors have been proven to work in Montana against huge herds of deer and elk. So why don't they work in Solon? Because they were designed to fail. They are designed to be installed in a continuous stretch to discourage deer from crossing the road. In Solon they were installed with 500 foot gaps to insure that the deer would cross the road nearby the reflectors. Installing them properly would prevent ALL the deer from crossing the road when cars drive by. 

2) Contraception DOES WORK, but we can't use it because the hunting license funded ODOW won't allow us to use it. That isn't a strike against deer proponents, its a strike against the hunters who demand an ever growing supply of "game". 

3) Food Parks, like reflectors, WOULD change deer behavior. The city chose to NOT EVEN TRY because the ODOW wouldn't allow them to KILL if they did this. 

My statement stands as correct - "Solon has refused to consider non-lethal methods"

Joe's favorite point


Joe's favorite point

by SolonPol, 10/27/11 3:56 AM
is that voting YES on 94 will stick it in the eye of city council and administration.

While that may sound a bit funny, there are actually serious reasons to do just that. The city has long been criticized for its myopic, KILL KILL KILL strategy and so decided to "fix it." Not by actually fixing it, but by "spinning" propaganda and producing a sham "comphrenesive" plan.

The city CLAIMS they are offering non-lethal alternatives, then in Oct, they admitted that it was the homeowner responsibility to implement these, the city could only KILL.

That isn't true, either because the city thought the public was dumb enough to swallow a sham plan with the title of "comphrehensive" or they didn't THINK.

This was pointed out to the city on multiple occasions and they continued to dig their heals in, they were sticking to their "story".

So if the public really is DUMB ENOUGH to swallow this sh-t, then you can swallow it, but if you are like me, someone who doesn't like the taste, who doesn't like to be lied to, who wants the city to THINK, then join me in demanding that the city do just that by voting YES on 94.

And oh yeah, it sticks it in their eye.

Here are some numbers for you


Here are some numbers for you.

by walley, 10/27/11 3:38 PM 
Re: The numbers by SolonBiker, 10/27/11 3:38 PM

In 2005, the first year for culling, 602 deer were killed. Of the 602 deer, 191 were under a year of age, I believe they’re called fawns. 87 deer were under two years of age, 91 were under 3 years, 74 were under 4 years, 159 were 4 years or older.

After being killed, the Does were butchered and the fetuses were counted. Among the fawns, 5 were carrying a single fetus and 2 were carrying twins. Among the yearlings 24 were carrying a single fetus and 22 were carrying twins. Among the adults, 49 were carrying a single fetus and 204 were carrying twins.

These are facts obtained through an FOI request of the City’s records, no exaggeration, no hyperbole, just the numbers. Solon, and it’s contractor were killing deer barely old enough to know what’s going on and killing pregnant Does and then counting fetuses. HOW MORBID IS THAT! Is that what you want us to be known for? Is it too much to ask people to drive more carefully, provide some screening for their picture windows and maybe invest in some deer netting for their tomato plants?

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Captive Bolt

The deer management plan that the city of Solon has already adopted includes three methods of killing deer. One particularly cruel method is the practice of killing deer by use of captive bolt, also referred to as “Trap and Euthanasia.” I think the people of Solon need to be aware that the use of captive bolt is not as benign as the term implies. In fact, the use of this method of killing deer is, by all definitions, quite violent. Captive bolt is used in backyards which are too small to shoot in – any backyard, maybe your neighbor's.

A deer is lured into a cage with food. The cage is of a size that the deer can move about. Once inside, the captive bolt operator tries to shoot a bolt from a gun into the head of the deer. Now, the deer is not stationary. This is not like a meat processor, like those supporting it would like you to believe. The deer is well aware of what someone is trying to do to it. And with the deer thrashing about, the bolt operator frequently misses [comma?] sending the bolt into the animal’s eye or jaw.

I’ve spoken with people who have witnessed this act. The animals writhe in pain, and although deer don’t technically scream, they make a guttural vocalization of terror that is about as close as you can get.

Do you really endorse this type of “euthanasia” in our backyards? In Solon? It’s time to stop this barbaric behavior. Vote Yes on Issue 94.

-- Mel

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

4883. Issue 94
by westpettiboner, 10/19/11 3:01 PM

Let us look at this from a different angle. We pay for police to keep crime down every year. We pay for fire fighters to put out fires every year. If we eliminated the police and fire departments because crime and fires are low in Solon and then in the following years when they "rebounded" would we say the money in previous years was wasted ?

We need to vote no on this to keep some type of culling and /or hunting open as an option. I also agree we need to find a cheaper way to do it. But banning lethal options for pie in the sky light reflectors that won't last past the first snow plow and oh by the way even when in prime condition only work at night.

4883.1. Missing Points
by SolonPol, 10/19/11 4:12 PM
Re: Issue 94 by westpettiboner, 10/19/11 4:12 PM

First, EVERYONE has police and fire, but NO ONE has a $160K / yr killing program. Let's not pretend that everyone does and that somehow deer killing is a standard city service, IT ISN'T! Solon is mentioned all over Ohio as being unique with this NO ONE has spent a million dollars as we are approaching this year in this fool hardy endeavor.

So why are we unique in having a deer killing program?

First, Solonites can't drive. I've seen it time and again on the BB Rd project, I just got off the phone with my next door neighbor who nearly got hit, but they plowed into the back of a construction vehicle with flashing strobe lights first. That car was just towed away. So the problem is more about distracted drivers, kill the deer and they are going to hit something else.

Second, Solonites just LOVE their landscaping, you'd think they could plant things deer don't eat, and some people are even smart enough to grow things they do eat and still not have them eat it by the way they protect their garden. Can we really blow six digits a year to protect the ignorant gardener and landscaper? For a tiny fraction of that we can bring in experts who will educate people in deer proof gardening and solve that problem.

Third, it's no secret that many people at city hall are recreational hunters and would love to hunt here rather than in southern Ohio. Why should taxpayers support a six digit annual recreational program for a small portion of the population? As Joe would say the precedent is set, we have subsidized Opera, I just can't figure out why Joe is voting for subsidized recreational hunting.

Fourth, it's NOT about having a culling/hunting option. First it isn't an option, they will be spending a million dollars every 6 years. That's a serious financial commitment. Second they have no non-killing options that make sense. They have none, they aren't interested in having any. The city is ignoring very valid alternative techniques with their tunnel vision, SHOOT, SHOOT, SHOOT. All the city did is put lipstick on the same old pig and passed it off as a "Comprehensive" Deer Mgt Plan, by adding crossbows to expensive shooters.

Fifth, Strieter Lites are NOT the only solution, its one of many.

Stay tuned to and for an upcoming article on just what the city can do if they want to be truly comprehensive.

Why is NO ONE NEARBY spending $160K per year? Because none of them are as stupid or as wasteful as Solon!

Can we all agree on that?

And once we agree, how do we fix it? They've been told to be comprehensive and they were too stubborn and set on killing to do anything but write an empty document that offered more of the same expensive, inefficient, killing only programs.

There's only one way to get through to people who are that stubborn, take all their weapons away and force them to THINK!

That's what I'm going to do, VOTE YES on Issue 94 and tell city hall to THINK!

Originally published here.

Friday, October 14, 2011

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.

Sunday, October 9, 2011

True Nature of Solon's Deer Plan

To: Solon Times <>
Subject: Letter to the editor

The true nature of Solon’s “Comprehensive Deer Management Plan”  has finally come to light.  At the close of the Council Meeting on October 3rd, Councilman Russo once again questioned Mr. Stanek on the deer management program, asking what non-lethal options existed and who would be responsible for carrying them out.  Mr. Stanek replied and Councilman Russo confirmed that the burden of the non-lethal management methods was going to be placed on the shoulders of the private property owner.  Council and the administration have ignored obvious opportunities to support, or even engage in a discussion of non-lethal methods, leaving it to private citizens to provide a Work Shop on coping with deer.  Despite the fact that the Deer Workshop was free and open to all, conspicuous by their absence were any members of the city council or administration.  It would seem, that the City is going to stay the course with the same old lethal program.  A great deal of time and effort has been put into constructing and justifying the lethal programs, while non-lethal methods have been given nothing more than lip service, excuses as to why they won’t work, and then thrown to the private homeowner to facilitate.  I’m not saying that the homeowner is not a legitimate stakeholder in this issue, but the City has simply done a “Pontius Pilot” here and said to everyone, “you’re on your own.”

The whole idea of “deer management” is a bit absurd.  You can’t manage wildlife.  You can manage livestock, but only because you control every aspect of it’s life.  You control where it lives, where and what it eats, when and if it reproduces and how long it lives.  The same can’t be said for wildlife.  Oh sure, you can send hunters into the woods to take pot shots at the animals, but that’s not management, that’s recreation.  You can throw hundreds of thousands of dollars at the problem trying to kill as many as you can, but they keep coming back.  An interesting concept was brought up by a Mr. Naegle of Urban Deer Solutions when he was here to give his presentation on Deer Parks.  He used the term “manipulate” in his discussions about deer.  You don’t manage deer, you manipulate them in a manner to reduce the impact they have in a given area.  By encouraging the deer to congregate in an area where they are not going to be a problem, you minimize the social and environmental impact on areas where they are not welcome.  While deer parks are not practical in Solon due to a lack of natural predators, the manipulation concept is the very heart of non-lethal management.  If you don’t want the deer on your property, take steps to discourage them from visiting.

Heinz Knall