Reduction is better
To the editor:
Regarding the ruminant deer population, I, for one, enjoy spotting a deer lying quietly under a bush or seeing tracks in the snow in my yard. It is one of the things I love best about this community, and, frankly, I'd like to simply let them be.
However, I also am a realist about this.
The population will continue to grow, and these animals have found a year-round food source from which they are unwilling to migrate.
If moved, they likely will find ranches or other towns where they can resume the lives they have grown accustomed to - namely living off of cultivated plantlife. The chances of these deer finding a truly wild situation and thriving are not good. Reduction is, unfortunately, the better answer.
The DOW distributes meat from illegal kills each year to those who sign up to receive it. The cost for processing falls upon those who want the meat. I suggest that with the animals that are destroyed, this would be a plausible solution as this minimizes the loss in this situation.
As for does that are left as a part of the ruminant population, using fertility control is a valid way of keeping the population under control so that destruction of these animals won't be necessary in the future.
Laura S. Day