Jump to content
Here is some useful information that might explain the costs and benefits of methods used to control urban deer populations.
Contraception and sterilization might sound like a good idea but the cost is very high for something that may, or may not, work.
You will need Adobe Acrobat or an equivalent to read this pdf file:
While it may be info from Wisconsin, where other deer species pose a much bigger problem, the methods used are generally across the board ideas that come up wherever I look.
I search "urban deer management" and am able to come up with a whole host of places to get useful information. It is because of some of these sites that I altered my outlook on the population control idea, I am still against mass eradication though.
This is something that cannot be rushed through and I am happy that there has been a committee formed and that they seem to be thinking this through, not overreacting to a few whiners.
Als362, your comment is exactly why I do not fly either, especially the "I hate everyone" part. There is not enough money on this planet to bribe me to fly due to that one fact alone.
Great letter, now that's "trapping and relocation".
Can we send all the perverts & wife beaters with them?
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?
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.
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.
While humorous, sort of, I think you're way off the mark justthe"facts".
I have seen people, two that I recall(in different parts of town), blatantly pouring feed of some sort into 5 gallon buckets placed under a tree, or next to a house, or some other part of their property. The deer stand by until the first pellet hits the bucket and then they mob to the feed like they have never been fed before. Not one or two deer but 5 or 10, why wouldn't they..."FREE FOOD, NO EFFORT".
Those doing it ARE the problem and need to be punished, not the deer for doing what comes instinctively and naturally.
Start with the $300 for the first offense, you go on a list and are monitored more closely. Then increase it to $1000 and 24 hours community service(cleaning up deer droppings, hauling dead ones off the roads, etc...) for the second offense , $1500 and 14 days jail time for the third offense. The habitual "you can't tell me what to do "ones can just get jail time, start with 90 days, double it for each offense to follow. As an inmate, make them help those with damage caused by deer, cleaning up after them and other "deer maintenance" duties. Sort of a three strikes rule, hopefully after paying the initial $300 fine, those doing it would stop feeding the deer and not even proceed to strike two.
Until you hit those outwardly and blatantly doing this with their livelihood and their bank accounts, they won't listen or heed the ordinance, you have to make it stiff enough that nobody will want to risk it.
In other words, give it some serious teeth.
Then, enforce it.
Case closed on the feeding issue.
Wise choice, you tested the rock with both feet, fell in and got all wet. Now lets proceed by testing the next rock with one foot before commiting.
Why didn't they just do this in the first place?
Thank you for that update.
Interesting they would claim a "safety issue" as the reason for the slaughter idea, one would think if a human were killed or injured by one, it would then be a safety issue. I was not aware that canine assault or botany battery were safety issues.
To bad they silenced the audience, might have been due to the passion surrounding this issue.
Hopefully a workable solution will be suggested that will satisfy all residents.
Anyone know how the City council meeting went tonight?
Last login: Tuesday, February 23, 2016
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Craig Daily Press. All rights reserved.