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

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.

Solon Sun Aug Editorial

The the Solon Sun editorial is here, Solon Patch asked for comments on the Solon Sun's editorial here.

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

1. Necessity - how is it determined that we have "too many". 
2. Effectiveness - rebound and migration from neighboring cities makes any killing program a fool's errand. 
3. 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.

Solon Times Editorials

The editorial by Dave Lange meandered on both sides of the fence making the following points:

• You don't need to be a Solon resident to weigh in on our deer debacles
• Claims killing deer is less painful than a car accident with them, missing the point that it isn't an either or proposition
• We kill other animals and eat their meat, why not deer?
• That only vegetarians should sign the petition to stop inefficient and dangerous killing programs
• He claims it wasn't urban sprawl, but unchecked deer population growth at fault for problems
• People who plant tasty treats shouldn't be surprised they are eaten
• Don't blame lack of predators, they've been gone for 50 years
• Recognized that the deer were "brought back" to make hunting opportunities
• Not a "hunting restriction" problem, we have one of the longest seasons and highest bag limits
• Thinks we need more hunters, not more restrictions
• Thinks both sides are guilty of "irresponsible scare tactics"
• Hunters aren't dangerous
• Rutting Deers aren't dangerous
• Lyme disease just isn't a problem in North Eastern Ohio

Interesting that Dave mentioned Cheney.  On this post, I mentioned.

" Hunting isn't safe, never has been, never will be. From Vice President Cheney's famous hunting accident to the startling statistics -- According to the International Hunter Education Ass. approximately 1,000 people in the US and Canada are accidentally shot by hunters every year and just under a hundred of those accidents are fatalities. "

He said

" Finally, irresponsible scare tactics diminish both sides of this debate. You're much more likely to get shot by one of your relatives than by a hunter, including Dick Cheney. "

I can't vouch for Dave's relatives, but I don't believe this is the general case.


See the full editorial here or below.

Right under Dave's editorial is another that is more friendly toward deer, but had a long winded intro to get to this main point.

" For all its successes as a community and in spite of its intelligent citizenry and thoughtful leaders, Solon has not been able to solve its self-inflicted deer problem.  

It should be clear by now gunning down the deer or shooting arrows into them are not solutions, just the cause of other more dangerous problems. 

Perhaps it's time to consider living in peace with the deer by controlling any future growth in the city then educating its two-legged residents on how to coexist with the four-legged ones. All the other failed and ill-advised strategies should be filed forever under, "Only in Solon." "

See the full editorial here or below.

Settle Dispute at Ballot Box

In Feburary, the Solon Times commented that the Deer Management Issue should be put on the Ballot...

=== ADD SUMMARY ===

ST Editorial 110224


I'd agree with one notable addition.  For too long residents have been fed propaganda that

• we have a deer problem
• we must do something
• that something involves killing deer

The residents need to be educated that we don't have to kill deer, there are low cost, effective, non-lethal alternatives.

What do you think...  Comment here...

Dissecting an Editorial

Let's take a closer look at the Sun Editorial published here.

"Whether Solon residents favor deer culling methods or not, they should all agree on one thing: The deer population in the city is growing and it needs to be managed in some fashion."


Why do we need to agree it needs to be "managed", wildlife was managed for millennia by nature without the need for human help.


A hastily-arranged proposal to permit bowhunting in the city this winter was wisely nixed. 


True


Bowhunting would have been limited to Grantwood Golf Course, one of the few wide open tracts of land in the city, contrary to the fears of some that it would have taken place in densely-populated neighborhoods. 


False, the pilot program was to be limited to a few properties during the pilot and would have expanded city wide.  Stanek said the safe area could be much smaller than 5 acres.


However, little thought was put into the overall plan and it was being rushed through at the end of the season as if city officials were suddenly made aware that there is an overpopulation of deer and something has to be done about it immediately.


True


Ever since the culling program with White Buffalo was terminated, it stood to reason that the deer population would start to grow. 


Maybe, but animal populations have leveled off without human intervention in the past.  With no count, this is only conjecture.


How much it has grown is unknown, and we are glad to see that Solon is looking to get the most accurate count it can of its deer population before taking any further steps.


Old News, Solon is going ahead without the count


We are also glad to see city officials are willing to listen to several options beyond simply culling the herd. If the method is legal in the state, as Councilman William Russo noted, the city will consider it as it tries to create a comprehensive deer management plan.


False, from a person who clearly won't "tolerate" views that differ from his own.  


As for legality, isn't it strange that two very viable non-lethal alternatives (contraception and capture & release) have been outlawed by the ODNR who receives its funding from special hunting interests.


We agree with Andy Montoney, regional director of wildlife services for the USDA, who told Solon City Council’s Safety Committee, “No single technology or tool is going to solve your situation.” He is right when he says the city must have a “whole toolbag” of different options such as fencing, education and population management. 


Doesn't jibe with their record which is one of killing and lip service to non-lethal options.  They mention non-lethal options and then quickly tell you what's wrong with them.


Each option in and of itself will not keep the deer herd in check, but used together, the city will be able to do a better job of keeping the deer population from getting out of hand.


Who's keeping human excess "in check"?


The important thing that everyone involved in this discussion must remember is that emotions cannot play a role in the process. It is very easy for the subject of deer management to become an emotional one, but that cannot be allowed to happen. 


Too late, we hear fictional tales of "deer attacks" and other propaganda to justify bringing back the failed experiment of "managing nature".


Few people are thrilled with the prospect of killing deer 


Really! Haven't seen the web sites where the hunters revel in their killing.


and everyone involved with fashioning this deer management plan is looking for humane methods to accomplish this.


The people who are looking into this enjoy hunting in their spare time and have been ignoring non-lethal methods.


We hope that Solon officials recognize the emotional nature of this issue and develop a thorough plan that will keep the deer population under control and will not rely simply on sharpshooting or bowhunting. 


If it weren't for the activists, that's all we'd get killing and more killing.


We hope that activists realize, however, that either sharpshooting or bowhunting is a necessary method to keep the population in check because non-lethal methods alone will not work.


We hope the hunters realize that we are onto their failed experiment and that we'd like to move into the 21st century with more enlightened approaches to our coexistence with the Earth.


That’s what we think. 


You call this "thinking"?


Share your opinion on this editorial or other topics by sending a letter to the editor to rjablonski@sunnews.com, faxing your letter to (216) 986-2340 or mailing it to Ray Jablonski, Sun News East Group editor, 5510 Cloverleaf Parkway, Cleveland, Ohio 44125. All letters must include the author’s name, city and a daytime phone number for verification and must be no more than 300 words in length.


Share your views here by commenting to this post and to the editorial here.

Sun Editorial

The Solon Sun wrote an editorial on the deer culling issue, the Solon Patch asked for comments on the editorial here.

Whether Solon residents favor deer culling methods or not, they should all agree on one thing: The deer population in the city is growing and it needs to be managed in some fashion.
...
The important thing that everyone involved in this discussion must remember is that emotions cannot play a role in the process. It is very easy for the subject of deer management to become an emotional one, but that cannot be allowed to happen. Few people are thrilled with the prospect of killing deer and everyone involved with fashioning this deer management plan is looking for humane methods to accomplish this. We hope that Solon officials recognize the emotional nature of this issue and develop a thorough plan that will keep the deer population under control and will not rely simply on sharpshooting or bowhunting. We hope that activists realize, however, that either sharpshooting or bowhunting is a necessary method to keep the population in check because non-lethal methods alone will not work.

John 1:46pm on Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Deer Advocates are dismissed as "emotional" and Hunting interests are deemed "rational" and nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is that Hunting causes rebound which causes more hunting (and more hunting licenses that fund the deer management (hunter) professionals, that's scientific and financial fact not emotion, its proved out that after five years we "have to do something" ignoring the fact that deer can't and never have, grown in population without limits.

Both local newspapers have a penchant for taking both sides of a particular issue without making any sense, their editorials sound much more political than principled. This editorial is no exception, a load of political nonsense, taking both sides, with dubious "facts".

As for looking for humane methods, they aren't looking too hard, in fact they are ignoring those experts in favor of hunting interests, but then if you look closely at the recreational pursuits of those at city hall you'll find far more people who shoot with a weapon than those that shoot with a camera (as I do).