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:

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.

See Solon Patch article here.

Mayor: David Hromco Right Man for Deer Culling Manager

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.

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!

4893.4.7. 

No One Does What Solon Does

by SolonPol, 10/29/11 3:55 AM 
Re: Vote YES on Issue 94 by SolonPol, 10/29/11 3:55 AM

NO ONE, not even the MetroParks. They don't overpay "professional" killers $500+ per deer. They have their own rangers do the shooting. It isn't free, but it isn't outrageously expensive either.

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

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

4893.4.6. 

Strike one, two, and three. NOT!

by SolonPol, 10/29/11 3:43 AM 
Re: Vote YES on Issue 94 by SolonPol, 10/29/11 3:43 AM

SolonPol writes: "Solon has refused to consider non-lethal methods, see upcoming post. With 5 years of failure with lethal methods, its time to force the city to into a different direction." 

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

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

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

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

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

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

4895. 

Joe's favorite point

by SolonPol, 10/27/11 3:56 AM

is that voting YES on 94 will stick it in the eye of city council and administration.

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

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

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

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

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

And oh yeah, it sticks it in their eye.

4896.4. 

Here are some numbers for you.

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

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

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

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

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