Betty Gorbet: Not giving up on deer

Advertisement

To the editor:

I attended the Craig City Council meeting last Tuesday and I must say that I was very disappointed.

How can the mayor of this town be so arrogant to think that he has heard all of our concerns or ideas?

I know he has definitely not heard mine.

Not once did I hear the word repellant. I did some research through wildlife management in other states that have the same concerns we are having. There is a repellant by the name of Deer Away, and it is said to be 85 to 100 percent effective.

They make it in both an area repellant and also as a contact repellant. It can also be used on edible plants. It is $35 per gallon.

So, why doesn’t the city invest in a quantity of this repellant and have the people who are having the problems with our vicious deer go to Craig City Hall and give their name and address?

That way, the city council can find out where the problem deer are and at the same time, maybe this so-called deer problem can be solved without the killing of innocent animals.

So, I don’t think our mayor has heard anything except what he wants to hear.

And I would also like to know how the two citizens for protecting our deer are going to be selected. I personally volunteered to help with this project and have heard nothing more from anyone.

I will not give up trying to save our deer, and I will be heard.

Thank you.

Betty Gorbet

Comments

als362 4 years, 1 month ago

I think if there are property owners that want to put deer repelent on their plants, then they should be the ones to invest in it, not the city. It is not the city's fault that the deer are here. The deer are here because of the large food supply in town. Those that think they are having a deer problem, and want something done about it, should be the ones to pay for whatever is done.

0

onewhocares 4 years, 1 month ago

Go Betty for saying it the way it is !!!! My sentiments exactly......

0

Taxpayer 4 years, 1 month ago

Based on als362 comments,on the deer, and since I don't have children, why is it I have to pay for the schools?

0

als362 4 years, 1 month ago

To help educate people like Taxpayer. Funding for schools is something that has been voted on by the people. The reason it was accepted by the people is because it benefits ALL the people not just a few. The benefits of education for children cannot be denied. The benefits of keeping the deer out of a few property owners yards can be argued and denied.

0

Taxpayer 4 years, 1 month ago

als362 -- I was using your analogy not mine --- did you need another reference? If the problem is a city problem, then everyone should pay for the actions like me paying for a service I am not using -- educating other people's children. I expect to have to pay for the deer problem before the City of Craig gets a huge lawsuit that we will ALL be paying -- City of Craig has very deep pockets for law suits. There is not a win-win solution available to any of us.

0

als362 4 years, 1 month ago

This is not a city problem. This is a percieved problem by a few.
And yes, you are using the school system everyday.
You are reaping the benefits of educating children by not having to pay welfare payments to uneducated children. There is nothing that the city can be sued for that should be addressed through the property owners insurance. If these people don't have enough sense to have insurance, that is too bad for them. It is not mine or anyone elses responsibility to take care of these types of issues. The only winning solution is to give this percieved problem back to those that percieve it.

0

Taxpayer 4 years, 1 month ago

You might use spell check -- "i before "e" except after "c" – 3 spelling errors and two grammar errors. My parents paid for my high school education, I paid for my next two degrees. Once the city brought in DOW, they acknowledged the "perceived" problem, and now have the “deep pockets” for a very large lawsuit – and they probably won’t be hearing from the ACLU on this one like the one regarding election dollars. Watch you purse and pockets.

0

David Moore 4 years, 1 month ago

Owe grate, nuther spelin cop. So mutch fer me gradumatin hi skul an larnin anglish.

Als362 is right, we as taxpayers should not be paying for this, those having the problem should. Schools, hospitals and fire/police are all infrastructure needs to operate a city, paid for by the taxpayers. Deer are not an infrastructure problem therefore should not be eliminated with tax dollars because they are a "percieved" threat.

0

Taxpayer 4 years, 1 month ago

I see eye to eye that deer are not considered an infrastructure, but when someone gets hurt, all of us will be paying with tax dollars for the lawsuit. It will be an interesting winter in Craig America -- wait until Fox News gets interested in this project. Until then, it will just be a lot of discussion with little being accomplished except for a lot of discourse on these blogs. ;-)

0

als362 4 years, 1 month ago

In the 31 years I have lived here I have never heard of anyone getting hurt by a deer. I have heard of people getting bitten by dogs, but not hurt by deer. So if the city wants to get involved in an issue that and the stray cats in this area should be the one to take on. But even if this were to happen, the first thing is to file a claim against ones homeowners or renters policy. Any one that doesn't have the sense to have insurance doesn't deserve any pay back. I also believe if Fox news broadcasts this story, they will force the City of Craig to leave the deer alone, because as soon as Fox news runs it, PETA will stick their nose in and that will put a lot of bad press on the city.

0

David Moore 4 years, 1 month ago

OK, not trying to bicker here, just trying to learn. If the deer are not owned by the city, how can they be sued if someone gets hurt? How is the city responsible? Who IS responsible for them? If I am walking through the city park and a tree falls on me, do I get to sue the city(if I live)? It's a natural occurrence, a tree falling, I just happened to be in the way. Same for a deer hurting someone on a city street, you get in their way and they hurt you because they are defending their young(another natural occurrence), does that make the city responsible because the injury happened on their street? That doesn't make much sense, guess that's why I'm in medicine and not law.

0

als362 4 years, 1 month ago

For the very reason Mr. Moore brought up is why any deer attack would be a claim against ones homeowners renters or health insurance.

0

Taxpayer 4 years, 1 month ago

From Law Department, University of California Los Angeles: Citizens can and will use the “deep pockets” of Municipalities, Counties, and States for negligence after a problem has been identified, but not resolved, leaving the defendant liable for damages especially utilizing jury trials. This is a standard across the United States.

0

David Moore 4 years, 1 month ago

I understand you als362, but I am asking about city property...streets, sidewalks, parks. If the city does not "own" the deer, and the deer injure someone on a city sidewalk, how is the city responsible? If a dog(not owned by the city, like the deer)attacks me on a city sidewalk, it's the dog owner that is responsible...right? Who is responsible if the deer attack someone in the same manner? WHO owns the deer?

0

Taxpayer 4 years, 1 month ago

Who owns the deer? Depending upon which agency is lecturing and where the finger is pointing, and which finger, I am not sure who is the owner of the deer but if there is trouble, it won't be anyone. This is truly a slippery slope down a mountain of manure.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.