Jump to content
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?
That is a pretty good read xrsareus, even though it is 16 years old.
Still makes a lot of sense and I encourage every single reader, poster and person for/against the DOW/City plan to read it...just substitute the town names for "Craig, Maybell, Hayden" or whatever town name fits this region.
Thanks for that, good stuff.
Plus als362, those eastern states have a very high prevalence of Lyme disease which is what prompts them to take action.
See this map for Lyme disease prevalence in the U.S.:
Also, their urban deer populations in some areas of those eastern states are in the thousands while we are dealing with MAYBE 400-500 here.
I searched things like "urban deer management" and "urban deer control". Not once did I run across a set plan such as Craig's idea to exterminate large groups of them...they consisted of well thought out management plans to control the population, which I can agree with.
Control being the keyword here. Mass trapping/killing is not control, it is a knee-jerk reaction to a minority of the towns population.
Craig is stepping on the rock in deep water with both feet instead of testing it with one.
51 letters & e-mails against the "plan"
187 petition signatures against the "plan"
70+ e-mails from PETA members against the "plan"(or at least the cruelty of bow-hunting)
351 Daily Press Readers opposed to the "plan"
=659 of those against mass trapping, slaughter and execution of the NATIVE deer.
50 people who attended the first meeting and demanded this "plan".
17 letters/e-mails in favor of the "plan".
144 for the plan on the reader poll
1 mayor and 3-4 councilpersons in favor of it(I'm guessing, we haven't heard much from them)
=215 people who want to exterminate the NATIVE deer.
If it were an election and we voted on this nonsense, the DOW/City plan, not the deer, would be exterminated.
The ONLY sensible plan, as suggested by another poster, is to make those that want the deer removed pay for it themselves.
Hopefully city council will see that the majority has spoken and will rule against this plan and come up with something reasonable other than outright extermination.
I don't think we are against control, but we are against outright mass trapping/killing and neighborhood bow-hunting. Safety first and that method is not safe for an urban area.
My suggestion is for those on the council to do some Google searching and studying of what other towns have done before making a firm decision.
Dawgs sink the sailors boat, 42-8.
Finally after 6 years.
Excellent game....way to go guys.
Last login: Friday, May 27, 2016
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Craig Daily Press. All rights reserved.