20-Year Integrated “Deer Management” Plan

Dear Editor: 

Regarding my “preliminary deer management plan” mentioned in your article titled [Foes cry, but city will seek culling bids] (Sept. 21, 2006),

I’m writing give a more complete picture of it. Culling deer as a means to reduce deer-vehicle accidents is turning neighbor against neighbor and Solon against itself. It is traumatizing children when they witness deer being killed before their eyes in the backyard next door. It is short term at best and makes little sense in the long run. 

As the contract shooter himself said, “Culling deer is like mowing lawn,” meaning that, due to the compensatory rebound effect of deer population, the killing has to be repeated year after year, at about $250,000 a year. Over 10 years, this would cost Solon $2.5 million, and over 20 years, $5 million, not counting inflation. And after all this expenditure, Solon would still be back at Square One, with nothing to show for it. 

All this lowers the deer-vehicle accident (DVA) rate by a mere 25%. On the other hand, if fencing is used, at about $6,000 per mile of fencing, a $250,000 upfront investment would endow Solon with 40 miles of deer-proof fencing, lowering the DVAs to near zero. The life expectancy of a woven wire and/or high tensile wire fence is about 25 years. It is a one-time expense that can solve the DVA problem for over 20 years in one go, with minimal maintenance. 

Other than along high-DVA roadways, the fencing could also skirt the rear of the deer-affected properties, thus keeping deer out of gardens. In addition, there is a full range of other deer repellents (chemical, acoustic, visual and biological). 

In addition to fencing, Strieter Lights have been proven effective in numerous other places (e.g. 40,000 installed since 1980 in British Columbia). The deer will find their own population equilibrium behind the fence by birth-rate adjustment and emigration. 

Most people in Solon or elsewhere do not want deer killed unnecessarily, especially by inhumane means. It is physically impossible for any shooter to make good the one-bullet-in-the-brain-per-deer promise. Many deer have been observed to be body-shot, and shot multiple times. 

Finally, the safety factor. With shooting occurring in over 70 kill-sites within city limits, often within yards of a neighbor’s house, accidents can happen. With all the available alternatives that are safer and less expensive, is Solon City Council willing to accept the responsibility for someone accidentally shot or, God forbid, killed? 

As they are well aware from DVAs, accidents do happen. 

Anthony Marr, founder Heal Our Planet Earth (HOPE) 

4118 West 11th Ave., 

Vancouver, BC, Canada V6R 2L6 

www.HOPE-CARE.org

http://www.cleveland.com/forums/solon/index.ssf?extlink?artid=38106

4594. 

Two Days Makes a Difference

by SolonDeer, 03/20/11 1:02 AM

In the Solon Times - Despite 'sticker shock' aerial deer count planned 03/16/2011

http://www.chagrinvalleytimes.com/NC/0/2903.html

Councilman William I. Russo said the aerial count "is something that's needed just to make sure the deer count has grown. "If there is no increase in deer count, then there is no justification for doing anything," he said 

Yet on 03/18 Russo along with the rest of council voted to proceed with the deer management plan without this count! What a difference two days makes!

Apparently the week started with Russo sure the aerial study would pass, who would even know about the secret last minute meeting early Friday morning.

Well the Patch was on it and blew the whistle: http://bit.ly/hh50a7 which drew lots of comments and an update immediately after the meeting. Hmmm...

http://solondeer.blogspot.com/2011/03/news-mar-2011.html

http://solondeer.com/

4576.2. 

...HISTORY LESSON...

by frankbam, 03/11/11 3:09 PM 
Re: Deer Management by SolonDeer, 03/11/11 3:09 PM

..in the old west men drove horse and wagon around hawking miracle cures..that probably contained booze and laudanum...today they drive an SUV, make power point presentations, selling streighter lights, proper garden plantings and deer condoms...GO FIGURE..

4576.2.1. 

Or more realistically

by SolonDeer, 03/11/11 6:29 PM 
Re: Deer Management by SolonDeer, 03/11/11 6:29 PM

and relavent to the Wed Safety Meeting, a Hunter goes to the library, learns powerpoint and then comes to tell us that the ONLY solution is more hunting. Sure there's rebound, all the more reason to hunt more. Is it effective? Sure as long as you keep ponying up $200K per year.

Oh by the way where does Scott Peters get most of his funding - HUNTING LICENCES. And here's hunting apologist Russo saying "well you have to get your funding from somewhere".

Can you spell "conflict of interest", apparently not.

Talk about snake oil salesmen, who would buy that crap, most of Solon I guess. Can you pay my share of the $200K every year, because I'm just not that gullible.

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...

Labels Defined

Admin

• Ann - Announcement on Web Services

Content

• Editorial
• Letters - to the Editor
• News
• SolonForum - Solon Forum on cleveland.com

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).