Welcome to the SolonDeer News Blog. As we hear news and interesting comments you will find them here. To have a comment considered for publication here, send it to SolonDeer at gmail dot com. The comment may be edited for clarity.
Each post has a label defining what category it belongs to, see Labels Defined post for the definitions.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Perceptions of herd population may be inaccurate
Summary: For the first time the hunters are admitting several things we've said all along. The Ohio herd numbers they use to justify hunting may be "inaccurate", they are now saying that "contraception" or sharpshooting must be used in urban environments. They call contraception "costly" without comparing it to the reoccurring expense of hunting. They admit that the state population numbers have nothing to do with urban deer populations that they don't even count. And they admit they manipulate deer populations to keep the hunters happy.
By Dave Golowenski
For The Columbus Dispatch Sunday February 19, 2012 7:49 AM
As noted last week, Ohio deer hunters took about 41,600 fewer whitetails during the 2011-12 season compared with the record 261,260 tagged in 2009-10. The harvest a year ago also was down.
News of the two-year drop — about 15.9 percent — has sparked numerous exchanges on deer forums on the Web. In the strictest sense, opinions run the entire gamut of A to B, to wit: The Ohio Division of Wildlife is at fault; the weather is to blame.
An apparent majority seems to think culpability rests mostly with the division; for example, its switch from check stations to electronic reporting of tagged deer. Then there are accusations that the division is working furtively at the behest of the insurance companies and the Ohio Farm Bureau to lower deer numbers. The wildlife biologists? They don’t seem to know — or care — what’s going on, some critics say.
One hunter, apparently writing in jest given the smiley faces on his post, suggested that maybe the solution lies with pitchforks and torches: “It’s time to make a plan and go get Tonkovich.”
Wildlife biologist Mike Tonkovich is charged with trying to figure out how to manage Ohio’s deer population in the best interests of all. That’s no easy task, given that hunters generally want more deer, but farmers and many urban/suburban dwellers generally want fewer.
The citizenry, which include farmers, urban dwellers and hunters, certainly aren’t blind. However, their view is restricted to the local landscape, which might hold many deer or might hold few. The number can fluctuate from year to year.
Meanwhile, the public hears reports about a growing herd that might indicate a runaway statewide deer population. Such awareness raises concerns among the whitetail-weary and makes hunters question whether the population estimates are reliable when they don’t see as many deer as they think they should.
Here’s the upshot: Tonkovich said not only is far too much emphasis placed on the estimated size of the statewide herd, but that estimate is next to meaningless when it comes to deer management.
The statewide estimate, he said, has “no bearing whatsoever on harvest regulations last year, this year or in the future. There’s not a statewide population goal. Unless my boss gets pressure, we’re not going to talk about (statewide) population anymore.”
Tonkovich manages deer by trying to work with a snapshot no larger than a single county. Simply put, deer are unequally distributed across a varied landscape, which explains in part why an island of two central Ohio counties, Fayette and Madison, will be included next year in the most restricted harvest zone. (The restricted zone, by the way, has over the years shrunk to only four other contiguous counties along Lake Erie in northwest Ohio.)
What makes Fayette and Madison different from surrounding counties is the ease with which hunters can wipe out deer. Two-acre woodlots sprouting amid a mostly agricultural expanse offer deer meager opportunities to avoid hunters.
“Five hunters easily can eradicate all the deer in a stand of trees,” Tonkovich said.
Hunting being the “most significant source of mortality,” he said, means that cutting the season harvest limit is the only cost-effective way to keep numbers at a level that satisfies hunters and doesn’t impose too heavily on farmers. Increasing the limits would have an inverse effect over time.
People annoyed by browsing wild animals on their piece of urban landscape, whether focused on deer sharing roadways or dining in their flowerbeds, often have the impression that the state is overrun with deer. The urban population, though, has never been counted in the state herd estimates. That’s because residential whitetails represent deer that are generally out of the reach of hunters and, therefore, wildlife managers.
“The urban populations are expanding, and they are waiting for no one,” Tonkovich said. “And we can’t touch them. Using automobiles to manage them is not an option.”
Ultimately, the control of nuisance neighborhood deer, he said, likely will require a costly program of contraception, which requires injecting individual deer, or the costly and, to some, unsavory hiring of sharpshooters to knock down the numbers.
As for the overall deer population, Tonkovich described the situation as somewhat “static.” He said he isn’t certain what’s behind the harvest decline of the past two years, although some signs point to fewer deer in counties where populations have tended to run high.
There is, though, a hitch in that assumption.
The models used to determine deer numbers are based on the annual harvest. What remains an unknown, however, is hunter effort. People are either spending a little time to fill a tag or a lot of time to do so. If hunters are giving up before they get a deer because of weather, lack of tenacity or any other reason, the decline in harvest might not be an indication that the deer numbers have fallen.
The division mailed more than 20,000 surveys and emailed another 16,000 to deer hunters in an attempt to get a handle on the effort factor in the deer-harvest equation. However, Tonkovich said the lack of response makes drawing conclusions sketchy and difficult.
Taking several minutes to fill out a survey and returning it in a timely manner, Tonkovich said, can help the division determine the missing piece that indicates whether regulations need to be tightened or loosened in a county. Based on harvest numbers alone, it’s possible that population estimates can lag behind by several years before the true deer numbers become apparent.
“If a hunter wants to make a difference, that’s where a hunter can make a difference,” he said. “ The thing we don’t know is effort. What we don’t know is whether people are hunting less because there are fewer deer. Or, are they just hunting less, and so it seems like there are fewer deer.”
What Tonkovich does know is that the number of purchased deer permits decreased during the most recent season by 4 percent after having fallen about 5 percent the previous year. That could be part of the reason for the drop in harvests, but the kill dropped considerably more than did permit sales.
outdoors@dispatch.com
By the numbers
Ohio deer kill totals over the past five seasons, according to the Ohio Division of Wildlife (the 2009-10 kill of 261,260 is the state record):
The last column is the largest hunting county, consistently Coshocton (over 100 mi south of Solon). ODNR encourages "urban hunting program" for the convenience of "sport hunting" and the license revenue it produces in this declining market.
See the full article here.
Outdoors: Too many deer? Too few? Hard to answer
By Dave Golowenski
For The Columbus Dispatch Sunday February 19, 2012 7:49 AM
As noted last week, Ohio deer hunters took about 41,600 fewer whitetails during the 2011-12 season compared with the record 261,260 tagged in 2009-10. The harvest a year ago also was down.
News of the two-year drop — about 15.9 percent — has sparked numerous exchanges on deer forums on the Web. In the strictest sense, opinions run the entire gamut of A to B, to wit: The Ohio Division of Wildlife is at fault; the weather is to blame.
An apparent majority seems to think culpability rests mostly with the division; for example, its switch from check stations to electronic reporting of tagged deer. Then there are accusations that the division is working furtively at the behest of the insurance companies and the Ohio Farm Bureau to lower deer numbers. The wildlife biologists? They don’t seem to know — or care — what’s going on, some critics say.
One hunter, apparently writing in jest given the smiley faces on his post, suggested that maybe the solution lies with pitchforks and torches: “It’s time to make a plan and go get Tonkovich.”
Wildlife biologist Mike Tonkovich is charged with trying to figure out how to manage Ohio’s deer population in the best interests of all. That’s no easy task, given that hunters generally want more deer, but farmers and many urban/suburban dwellers generally want fewer.
The citizenry, which include farmers, urban dwellers and hunters, certainly aren’t blind. However, their view is restricted to the local landscape, which might hold many deer or might hold few. The number can fluctuate from year to year.
Meanwhile, the public hears reports about a growing herd that might indicate a runaway statewide deer population. Such awareness raises concerns among the whitetail-weary and makes hunters question whether the population estimates are reliable when they don’t see as many deer as they think they should.
Here’s the upshot: Tonkovich said not only is far too much emphasis placed on the estimated size of the statewide herd, but that estimate is next to meaningless when it comes to deer management.
The statewide estimate, he said, has “no bearing whatsoever on harvest regulations last year, this year or in the future. There’s not a statewide population goal. Unless my boss gets pressure, we’re not going to talk about (statewide) population anymore.”
Tonkovich manages deer by trying to work with a snapshot no larger than a single county. Simply put, deer are unequally distributed across a varied landscape, which explains in part why an island of two central Ohio counties, Fayette and Madison, will be included next year in the most restricted harvest zone. (The restricted zone, by the way, has over the years shrunk to only four other contiguous counties along Lake Erie in northwest Ohio.)
What makes Fayette and Madison different from surrounding counties is the ease with which hunters can wipe out deer. Two-acre woodlots sprouting amid a mostly agricultural expanse offer deer meager opportunities to avoid hunters.
“Five hunters easily can eradicate all the deer in a stand of trees,” Tonkovich said.
Hunting being the “most significant source of mortality,” he said, means that cutting the season harvest limit is the only cost-effective way to keep numbers at a level that satisfies hunters and doesn’t impose too heavily on farmers. Increasing the limits would have an inverse effect over time.
People annoyed by browsing wild animals on their piece of urban landscape, whether focused on deer sharing roadways or dining in their flowerbeds, often have the impression that the state is overrun with deer. The urban population, though, has never been counted in the state herd estimates. That’s because residential whitetails represent deer that are generally out of the reach of hunters and, therefore, wildlife managers.
“The urban populations are expanding, and they are waiting for no one,” Tonkovich said. “And we can’t touch them. Using automobiles to manage them is not an option.”
Ultimately, the control of nuisance neighborhood deer, he said, likely will require a costly program of contraception, which requires injecting individual deer, or the costly and, to some, unsavory hiring of sharpshooters to knock down the numbers.
As for the overall deer population, Tonkovich described the situation as somewhat “static.” He said he isn’t certain what’s behind the harvest decline of the past two years, although some signs point to fewer deer in counties where populations have tended to run high.
There is, though, a hitch in that assumption.
The models used to determine deer numbers are based on the annual harvest. What remains an unknown, however, is hunter effort. People are either spending a little time to fill a tag or a lot of time to do so. If hunters are giving up before they get a deer because of weather, lack of tenacity or any other reason, the decline in harvest might not be an indication that the deer numbers have fallen.
The division mailed more than 20,000 surveys and emailed another 16,000 to deer hunters in an attempt to get a handle on the effort factor in the deer-harvest equation. However, Tonkovich said the lack of response makes drawing conclusions sketchy and difficult.
Taking several minutes to fill out a survey and returning it in a timely manner, Tonkovich said, can help the division determine the missing piece that indicates whether regulations need to be tightened or loosened in a county. Based on harvest numbers alone, it’s possible that population estimates can lag behind by several years before the true deer numbers become apparent.
“If a hunter wants to make a difference, that’s where a hunter can make a difference,” he said. “ The thing we don’t know is effort. What we don’t know is whether people are hunting less because there are fewer deer. Or, are they just hunting less, and so it seems like there are fewer deer.”
What Tonkovich does know is that the number of purchased deer permits decreased during the most recent season by 4 percent after having fallen about 5 percent the previous year. That could be part of the reason for the drop in harvests, but the kill dropped considerably more than did permit sales.
outdoors@dispatch.com
By the numbers
Ohio deer kill totals over the past five seasons, according to the Ohio Division of Wildlife (the 2009-10 kill of 261,260 is the state record):
| Year | Total | Gun | Archery | Muzzle | Other | Cosh |
| 2007-08 | 232,854 | 121,183 | 78,639 | 22,329 | 10,703 | 8,417 |
| 2008-09 | 252,017 | 134,231 | 85,856 | 21,532 | 10,398 | 9,564 |
| 2009-10 | 261,260 | 134,130 | 91,546 | 25,497 | 10,087 | 9,633 |
| 2010-11 | 239,379 | 127,157 | 85,012 | 17,887 | 9,323 | 8,837 |
| 2011-12 | 219,698 | 107,048 | 84,350 | 19,251 | 9,049 | 7,969 |
The last column is the largest hunting county, consistently Coshocton (over 100 mi south of Solon). ODNR encourages "urban hunting program" for the convenience of "sport hunting" and the license revenue it produces in this declining market.
See the full article here.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Still Waiting
"Of all the creatures, man is the most detestable. Of the entire brood, he is the only one that possesses malice. He is the only creature that inflicts pain for sport, knowing it to be pain. The fact that man knows right from wrong proves his intellectual superiority to the other creatures; but the fact that he can do wrong proves his moral inferiority to any creature that cannot."
-- Mark Twain
- Still waiting for the comprehensive part of the "Comprehensive Deer Management Plan".
- Still waiting for an explanation why Solon Taxpayers are picking up the entire tab on the State's "deer problem".
- Still waiting to hear why non-lethal methods were included in the City's deer management plan and then dismissed as ineffective at subsequent meetings.
Smoke and mirrors? Or just a failure of imagination.
"I have been studying the traits and dispositions of the "lower animals" (so called) and contrasting them with the traits and dispositions of man. I find the result humiliating to me."
-- Mark Twain
Heinz Knall commenting on Interactive Map of Deer Culling Sites: Are They Shooting Near You? article 10:29 am on Saturday, February 18, 2012
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Culling Delayed, expected Feb 1st
Solon deer culling could begin before Feb. 1
SOLON - Although the city’s reactivated deer culling program had not gotten underway yet, the manager of the program said earlier this week he expected sharpshooting could begin before Feb. 1.
“Right now, that’s depending on the weather conditions,” said David Hromco, manager of the city’s program. “The program does work a little better when there’s snow, as long as there’s not too much.”
Wind conditions are also a factor in getting the program off the ground, said Hromco, who set up the initial program using sharpshooters from a private contractor beginning in 2004 and continuing through 2009.
See full story in the Solon Sun
Feb Update:
Deer culling efforts began in Solon this week and are expected to continue into March.
The shooters are using different rifles than in past efforts, and that the gunshots are louder. It's possible that residents will hear gunshots.
He said that any residents with concerns can call the city's Public Works line at 440-337-1340.
NOTE: Typically you should call the police if you hear gunshots. You may want to do that if you hear shots from an area not listed as a kill site. We'd also be very interested if you discover a new kill site, please let us know at SolonDeer@gmail.com .
See full story in the Solon Patch
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Killing to Start Jan 23rd
This post will show news items related to the start of killing...
On Fox News
http://www.fox8.com/news/wjw-news-solon-deer-killings,0,834893.story
Take the Patch Poll and tell us how you feel about deer culling in Solon. And then head down to the comments and tell us why you feel the way you do.
Check back for more news stories this week
On Fox News
http://www.fox8.com/news/wjw-news-solon-deer-killings,0,834893.story
Deer Culling to Begin Soon in Solon
Sharpshooters with the U.S. Department of Agriculture are preparing sites for shooting and could begin on Jan. 23.
See the article in the Patch here.Poll: Do You Feel Safe With Deer Culling in Solon?
Take the Patch Poll and tell us how you feel about deer culling in Solon. And then head down to the comments and tell us why you feel the way you do.
Check back for more news stories this week
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Sharing Costs?
Another parody of the city's deer culling activity
http://www.cleveland.com/forums/solon/index.ssf?artid=41544
5058.1. Asking neighboring cities to help pay for culling...
by solonjoe3, 01/17/12 10:30 AM
Re: Serious response regarding Deer Killing... by bystander75, 01/17/12 10:30 AM
.
Mayor Drucker: Maria, can you get me the mayor of Bentleyville on the line?
Maria: Bentleyville?
Mayor Drucker: Yeah, it’s a city north of us, remember.
Maria: oh, ok.
[Five minutes pass]
Mayor Drucker: Maria, how’s that call coming?
Maria: Sally hid the phone books so I’m looking it up on one of the internets.
http://www.cleveland.com/forums/solon/index.ssf?artid=41544
5058.1. Asking neighboring cities to help pay for culling...
by solonjoe3, 01/17/12 10:30 AM
Re: Serious response regarding Deer Killing... by bystander75, 01/17/12 10:30 AM
.
Mayor Drucker: Maria, can you get me the mayor of Bentleyville on the line?
Maria: Bentleyville?
Mayor Drucker: Yeah, it’s a city north of us, remember.
Maria: oh, ok.
[Five minutes pass]
Mayor Drucker: Maria, how’s that call coming?
Maria: Sally hid the phone books so I’m looking it up on one of the internets.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Deer coordination teleconference?
A parody of the city's deer culling activity
http://www.cleveland.com/forums/solon/index.ssf?artid=41527
5056. Deer coordination teleconference?
by solonjoe3, 01/16/12 1:21 PM
Phone system: Stolarsky has joined the conference.
Russo: Ok, let’s get started. It’s already past the time.
Phone system: Stolarsky has left the conference.
Russo: He’ll have to catch up. Let’s start by looking at the maps for Ward I. You should have a ward one map on the screen.
Meany: I don’t see a map.
Russo: What do you see?
Meany: Wait it second…. I think it’s asking me if I want to let Cisco meeting center software run my computer. What should I do?
Russo: Click “yes.” Ok, we’ll continue on. You can see on the map that we have 8 culling sites in ward 1.
Phone system: Stolarsky has joined the conference.
Russo: We don’t quite have the coverage we’d like in the eastern side of the ward but….
http://www.cleveland.com/forums/solon/index.ssf?artid=41527
5056. Deer coordination teleconference?
by solonjoe3, 01/16/12 1:21 PM
Phone system: Stolarsky has joined the conference.
Russo: Ok, let’s get started. It’s already past the time.
Phone system: Stolarsky has left the conference.
Russo: He’ll have to catch up. Let’s start by looking at the maps for Ward I. You should have a ward one map on the screen.
Meany: I don’t see a map.
Russo: What do you see?
Meany: Wait it second…. I think it’s asking me if I want to let Cisco meeting center software run my computer. What should I do?
Russo: Click “yes.” Ok, we’ll continue on. You can see on the map that we have 8 culling sites in ward 1.
Phone system: Stolarsky has joined the conference.
Russo: We don’t quite have the coverage we’d like in the eastern side of the ward but….
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Stanek Retires, Hromco will return to manage deer culling
Public Works Commissioner Jim Stanek Retires Suddenly
Stanek, who oversaw a number of departments and was with the city for more than three decades, retired suddenly earlier this month.
Kraus said Mayor Susan Drucker will have an important decision to make in replacing Stanek, who oversaw the service, engineering and water reclaimation departments.
Stanek was also the city's leader in handling its deer culling project. Kraus said finding the right person to manage that task will be important.
See Solon Patch article here.
Solon's Public Works Director resigns; Dave Hromco returns for deer culling program
Following the abrupt retirement of Public Works Commissioner Jim Stanek, city officials plan to appoint his retired assistant, David Hromco, to oversee the deer management program that will be reactivated this year.
Hromco was instrumental in devising the city's original deer culling plan in 2004-05, when a private contractor, White Buffalo Inc. was employed until the end of 2009, when the program was abandoned.
Formal action is expected at the Tuesday (Jan. 17) City Council meeting.
See Solon Sun article here.
UPDATE:
In the wake of Jim Stanek's retirement, the city will bring retired employee David Hromco back to manage the deer culling program.
See Solon Patch article here.
Stanek, who oversaw a number of departments and was with the city for more than three decades, retired suddenly earlier this month.
Kraus said Mayor Susan Drucker will have an important decision to make in replacing Stanek, who oversaw the service, engineering and water reclaimation departments.
Stanek was also the city's leader in handling its deer culling project. Kraus said finding the right person to manage that task will be important.
See Solon Patch article here.
Solon's Public Works Director resigns; Dave Hromco returns for deer culling program
Following the abrupt retirement of Public Works Commissioner Jim Stanek, city officials plan to appoint his retired assistant, David Hromco, to oversee the deer management program that will be reactivated this year.
Hromco was instrumental in devising the city's original deer culling plan in 2004-05, when a private contractor, White Buffalo Inc. was employed until the end of 2009, when the program was abandoned.
Formal action is expected at the Tuesday (Jan. 17) City Council meeting.
See Solon Sun article here.
UPDATE:
Solon To Pay Temporary Deer Culling Manager As Much As $6,000
David Hromco, who is returning from retirement temporarily to manage Solon's deer culling this winter, will earn $40 per hour.
The contract with Hromco was approved by city council this week. It runs through March 31, and maxes out at 150 hours. So the most Hromco can earn on the job is $6,000.
Hromco will also be issued a city cell phone and have access, if needed, to a city vehicle.
Mayor: David Hromco Right Man for Deer Culling Manager
See Solon Patch article here.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
What's really practical?
http://www.cleveland.com/forums/solon/index.ssf?artid=40290
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!
http://www.cleveland.com/forums/solon/index.ssf?artid=40280
Biker said "4900.1.2.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1. 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.
https://sites.google.com/site/solondeerdotcom/SolonDeer-non-lethal-alternatives/contraception
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!
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!
http://www.cleveland.com/forums/solon/index.ssf?artid=40280
Biker said "4900.1.2.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1. 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.
https://sites.google.com/site/solondeerdotcom/SolonDeer-non-lethal-alternatives/contraception
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!
Saturday, October 29, 2011
No One Does What Solon Does
4893.4.7.
Re: Vote YES on Issue 94 by SolonPol, 10/29/11 3:55 AM
No One Does What Solon Does
by SolonPol, 10/29/11 3:55 AMRe: 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.
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!
4893.4.6.
Re: Vote YES on Issue 94 by SolonPol, 10/29/11 3:43 AM
Strike one, two, and three. NOT!
by SolonPol, 10/29/11 3:43 AMRe: 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"
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
4895.
Joe's favorite point
by SolonPol, 10/27/11 3:56 AMis 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.
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
4896.4.
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?
Here are some numbers for you.
by walley, 10/27/11 3:38 PMRe: 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
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. https://sites.google.com/site/solondeerdotcom/SolonDeer-non-lethal-alternatives
Stay tuned to http://SolonDeer.org/ and http://solondeer.blogspot.com/ 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.
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. https://sites.google.com/site/solondeerdotcom/SolonDeer-non-lethal-alternatives
Stay tuned to http://SolonDeer.org/ and http://solondeer.blogspot.com/ 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?"
NO to Issue 94.
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.
"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
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 <editor@chagrinvalleytimes.com>
Subject: Letter to the editor
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
Friday, September 30, 2011
Hunting Valley wants to increase hunting
The Solon Sun recently reported "Hunting Valley ponders reducing acreage for deer hunting".
To summarize:
The whole article is here.
To summarize:
- Council wants to reduce minimum hunting areas from 10 acres to 5 acres.
- Question asked about two largest property which don't allow hunting
- 91 hunters are waiting to hunt on 41 properties
- One person raised the question "what happens about wounded deer running off property"
The whole article is here.
Hudson considering hunting
ROUGH DRAFT
Noticed this tweet, if you have more details, please email SolonDeer at gmail dot com.
From the Hudson Council Agenda Sept 21st
xx
Noticed this tweet, if you have more details, please email SolonDeer at gmail dot com.
Tell @CityofHudsonOH to say NO to Ordinance No. 11-105 STOP #BowHunting #DeerHunting in #Hudson #Ohio goo.gl/pn3Le #ClevelandRocks
From the Hudson Council Agenda Sept 21st
C. Ordinance No. 11-105 entitled “AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PART TEN, “STREETS, UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES CODE”, OF THE CITY OF HUDSON TO ADD NEW CHAPTER 1074, “DEER HUNTING”; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY"
xx
Monday, August 15, 2011
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)