[Durham INC] council's decision regarding deer hunting

[Dorothy Potter Snyder]

Tx, Melissa. Keep your candle burning.

Dorothy P . Snyder


On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 7:50 PM, Mel's Yahoo <mmr121570 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Wow. I am loving this conversation. I hate being a fence sitter, as I was
> when I forwarded the first email.
>
> I agree w Dorothy's manifesto and wld like more thoughts regarding Will's
> mention of reducing restrictions (i.e. # bucks/does allowed/season) on
> rural and game-land hunting as a means of dealing w deer overpopulation.
>
> I would also like to see *serious* protection of wolves and coyotes in
> rural areas.
>
> Thx for all the continued discussion...
> Melissa
>
> www.melissarooneywriting.com
>
> All the darkness in the world cannot put out a single candle.
> ~St. Francis of Assisi
>
> On Jan 11, 2014, at 2:44 PM, Dorothy Potter Snyder <
> letsspeakspanish at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> First, I recognize that these kind of discussion about our shared
> environment are healthy and necessary. Second, I hope we can agree that
> when aggressive phrases like "the only good deer is a dead deer" are used,
> in whatever context, hackles will go up. It comes off as ugly and
> heartless, and what's worse, echoes the awful and famous words of major
> general Phil ("The only good indian is a dead indian") Sheridan, and is
> offensive to Native Americans and should be to all Southerners. I remind
> all of us, including myself, that words in these public forums can hurt if
> not used with care and an attention to manners.
>
> Second, it is clear to me that decisions about how best to manage our
> environment to redress the terrible errors of the past should be left
> primarily in the hands of foresters, biologists, and ecologists and not in
> those of private citizens and politicians. Why? Because experts (of which
> we have a wonderful corps employed by the City today, understand not only
> the science, but also the history of our natural environment and the damage
> caused by our often wrongheaded approaches to managing it.
>
> Historically, Native Americans on the east coast of the United States
> relied upon the meat and hide of the white tailed deer (odocoileus
> virginianus), which was plentiful until European populations began to
> settle on these shores. Between 1600 and 1900, so much over-hunting was
> done that the white-tailed deer was almost driven to extinction. Yes, it
> was nearly extinct! Protective game laws and restocking policies began in
> the 1930s during the great time of WPA public works projects, and those
> undertaking as well as the deer's ability to adapt to human-created
> landscapes have brought those populations back in such numbers that there
> are now perhaps twice as many deer now in this state as were here when the
> settlers arrived in Jamestown.  That's not good for us, and it's worse for
> the forests and for the deer themselves.
>
> Deer aren't the only animals that people might think of as "destructive",
> either. We also have busy beavers in this city that take down actual trees,
> and some of them live right near us along Third Fork Creek in Forest Hills
> Park, as well as along other urban waterways. But thanks heavens for the
> beavers and the work they do to keep the waterway open, prevent flooding
> and redress erosion! Thanks to the efforts of urban foresters and
> biologists employed by the city, we are slowly redressing the terrible
> damage that resulted from the Army Corps of Engineers actually MOVING and
> (can you believe it) STRAIGHTENING Third Fork Creek to build the shopping
> mall where Compare Foods is on University. This is a classic example of the
> sort of wrongheaded development that continues to this day. Do beavers take
> down some small trees in their good work? Yes, they do. Is that okay? Yes,
> it is.
>
> Trees still grow, dams are built, and the land tries to re-balance itself.
> Deer populations, decimated by us, then become larger than is healthy --
> also because of us. This is why science and a knowledge of history must
> lead the way towards what should be our common goal -- an environment that
> promotes the well-being of ALL species for the goal of harmonious
> co-existence. We also need to get real information and not operate on urban
> myths like the one that deer are responsible for Lyme disease: Yes, they're
> called "deer ticks", but they are carried by all outdoor animals, including
> your own beloved dog and cat.
>
> What is the moral of this tale? For me it is that when we humans do not
> live in a healthy balance with the environment (both materially AND
> spiritually), fixing our messes is a HUGE and costly job. (I've spent three
> years of hard labor removing wisteria, non-native grapes, honeysuckle and
> English ivy from our little green acre in Hope Valley, as well as removing
> literally truckloads of construction waste, bottles and other man-made
> garbage from the soil. And I'm not done yet!)  Just running around the City
> of Durham killing deer is NOT a comprehensive solution, and I do not think
> that citizen hunters -- unless fully trained and supervised by Forestry
> personnel -- should be aiming crossbows at large animals within City
> limits. Addressing the deer population should be a coordinated statewide
> and cross-disciplinary effort. Solutions might be lengthening the hunting
> season slightly; protecting and reintroducing large predators (bears,
> wolves, foxes, raptors) in the countryside and proceeding with urban
> culling (it's now the doable under the law), but put it in the hands of
> expert personnel. Why not bring the deer meat to our poor who need it?
>
> If you don't want deer nibbling your ornamentals, put up a fence; or go to
> Stone Brothers in Chapel Hill. They have anti-deer mixtures that last
> weeks. Or don't plant species that deer like. Or, conversely, relax and
> realize that native varieties are used to being "pruned" this way and,
> unless they are descended upon by a large herd, they will still live and
> thrive.
>
> Let us try to move towards a more communitarian perspective these and
> other matters, and a more holistic approach to solutions. Durham needs to
> move toward first-class public transportation to cut down on car traffic;
> we need to concentrate human populations and avoid sprawl,  we need to
> place limits on development; we need to educate ourselves with real
> information, not urban myths and scare speech;  and we need to take
> advantage of the many great workshops and information available for free
> via our Forestry Service, Ag Extension and other City of Durham
> environmental departments.  Durham has a chance to be the best, greenest
> and most sustainable city in America, but it's going to take wisdom,
> willingness and community involvement at a high level.
>
> Respectfully,
> Dorothy Potter Snyder
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Pat <pats1717 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I suggest you google the pair of words deer and overbrowsing to see what
>> deer are doing.  At least the latest is that deer are not causing Lyme
>> disease (the relevant hosts are little animals like mice; the deer are dead
>> ends for lyme bacteria like we are).
>>
>> > Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 12:32:16 -0500
>> > From: nutryb at mindspring.com
>> > To: list at durham-inc.org
>>
>> > Subject: Re: [Durham INC] council's decision regarding deer hunting
>> >
>> > Hi Dorothy;
>> >
>> > As you correctly note, deer "thrived" before mass development took over
>> their ranges, but part of that thriving involved the complex relationship
>> of predators and prey. There are no primary natural predators of deer left
>> in most urban areas. (I don't see us successfully reintroducing wolves to
>> urban Durham!) This causes an imbalance in the ecosystem that can cascade
>> in unintended ways. Limited urban hunting is a method of addressing the
>> ecological imbalance in a way that is less impactful to other wildlife or
>> the environment (no poison, no salt licks laced with contraceptives, no
>> masses of deer-proof fencing).
>> >
>> > Prior to the implementation of urban hunting, the plant ecology along
>> the Bolin Creek Trail in Chapel Hill was being decimated by the masses of
>> deer eating all the tender plant material that could be found. It was a
>> similar situation to that found in Yellowstone prior to the reintroduction
>> of wolves there - masses of elk ate everything, causing stream erosion,
>> loss of plant diversity, loss of other animal species dependent on that,
>> etc. When a balancing predator is brought in, the ecological balance
>> returns.
>> >
>> > I keep my cats inside, prefer infill and brownfields development, and
>> agree that hunting bear with dogs for sport is lamentable and wrong-headed.
>> But in the interest of "respecting the primordial order of nature" I
>> believe, given the loss of the former predatory species, humans must take
>> over responsibility as a primary predator for deer in urban areas.
>> >
>> > Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to agree to disagree,
>> > Paula from CVNA
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Dorothy Potter Snyder
>> > Sent: Jan 10, 2014 10:15 AM
>> > To: Deborah Christie
>> > Cc: prestonwoods at yahoogroups.com, list at durham-inc.org, Rebecca Board ,
>> "rockwoodneighborhood at yahoogroups.com"
>> >
>> > Subject: Re: [Durham INC] council's decision regarding deer hunting
>> >
>> > Dear Deb,
>> >
>> > I forward this to my local listserv neighbors who may not be in on the
>> Durham Inc. conversations.
>> >
>> > I believe there is a cultural conflict apparent in our conversation
>> about urban hunting. The individualist perspective sees protecting his own
>> space and property as the highest ethic; the communitarian perspective sees
>> the community environmental/social perspective as the highest priority.
>> This conflict is not new, but it is bridgeable.
>> >
>> > Regarding deer populations: Contrary to your statement that deer thrive
>> because humans populate more formerly wild land, I would submit to you that
>> deer thrived on this continent long before subdivisions and strip malls
>> starting popping up like mushrooms. To suggest that they are many deer
>> because we are creating a patchwork on their traditionally wild environment
>> is a misunderstanding of how ecological systems work. Ruminants increase
>> because they are lacking predators and man is not the ideal predator; bears
>> and wolves are. Despite this fact, right now in NC there are movements
>> afoot in different counties to start hunting bear with dogs (see here)
>> which, quite apart for the inhumane aspect of this practice, is a
>> wrong-headed move that will result only in an inconvenient overpopulation
>> of deer in agricultural regions. Similarly, my Durham neighbors are
>> frequently alarmed by seeing a fox here and there and some even (illegally)
>> put out poison to kill them, all unaware that the fox keep rodent
>> populations down. Domestic cats don't belong in the wild, but we put them
>> out there in great numbers, hence depleting our populations of migratory
>> songbirds.
>> >
>> > My point is that there are competing interests, and while I respect
>> each person's right to express her thoughts/feelings on the matter, there
>> is good environmental science to refer to and we should strive for
>> scientific accuracy as we design laws that affect us and our environment.
>> Human beings must to learn to make the necessary sacrifices and take the
>> time to learn about how to maintain a healthy community for everyone. That
>> will involve limiting development, keeping domestic pets indoors or fences,
>> consciously limiting human populations, keeping a closer eye on industrial
>> pollution, and respecting the primordial order of nature.
>> >
>> > I am still opposed to urban hunting.
>> >
>> > Respectfully yours,
>> >
>> > Dorothy Potter Snyder
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Deborah Christie <dchristie1 at nc.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > George and I support the Council’s decision regarding deer hunting, as
>> well as Duke University’s annual deer cull in Duke Forest, near our home.
>> > The arguments pro and con deer hunting are well known. Despite a tiny
>> minority of objectors, community after community is coming to the
>> inevitable conclusion that there are more and more deer until responsible
>> hunters are engaged to keep their numbers in check.
>> > The Department of Natural Resources of the State of Maryland is one of
>> an overwhelming number of sources which explain the necessity of keeping
>> deer populations under control through responsible hunting:
>> http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/Hunt_Trap/deer/deer_management/deerhuntastool.asp
>> > Most of us accept that humans are creating, not taking away deer
>> habitat. Deer are edge dwellers, and thrive on suburban gardens. Deer are
>> thriving precisely because of human development.
>> > Let’s support responsible hunting, including urban archery, and
>> providing deer meat to community kitchens.
>> > Deb Christie
>> > From: inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org [mailto:inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org]
>> On Behalf Of Dorothy Potter Snyder
>> >
>> > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 4:39 PM
>> > To: Rebecca Board; list at durham-inc.org
>> > Subject: Re: [Durham INC] council's decision regarding deer hunting
>> > Let's remember that we humans with our endless building are taking away
>> the deer's habitat which forces them ever closer into suburban areas. This
>> is their land, too. There is no harm the deer do that merits death, unless
>> you figure that the loss of the tip of a branch of an an ornamental should
>> be punishable by death.
>> > No one is welcome to hunt here in my yard, or in our neighborhood. I
>> will stand up against any suggestion to kill creatures within city limits.
>> > Peace,Dorothy Snyder
>> > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Rebecca Board <becca at cyberlily.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Personally, I support the City Council in this. I'm a strong supporter
>> of gun control, but I also believe that within the city limits the only
>> good deer is a dead one. They breed like bunnies, have no predators except
>> cars to cull the population, and they cause a lot of damage. I've wanted a
>> way to cull my personal deer population on a city lot for decades now, and
>> would feel a lot better about bringing in an archer than someone with a gun
>> - not necessarily because the weapon does less damage, but because it takes
>> more skill and thought to use a bow than to pull a trigger.
>> > Sounds like the hunter in the story below didn't care if what he was
>> doing was legal or not, endangered others or not, disturbed the peace or
>> not, caused him to trespass or not. My question is how do we keep jerks
>> like this from being allowed to hunt anywhere with any type of weapon?
>> > As many gun problems as we have in this country, archers and even
>> hunters with single shot rifles are pretty low on my list of threats.
>> > BUT, if I'd had the experience of the person below, I'd probably have
>> sent the same letter. It's understandable. But personally I've heard a lot
>> more stories about problems caused by deer than stories about crazy hunters.
>> > --Rebecca
>> > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Melissa Rooney <mmr121570 at yahoo.com>
>> wrote:Please see the following/forwarded message to the Council from my
>> friend Carol Young. While I agree with ecologically sound ways of dealing
>> with an overpopulation of deer when it exists, I am also concerned about
>> allowing people to hunt deer within city limits, whether with a bow, a
>> boomerang, whatever. The story described below is an example of the
>> situations that can (and have) developed (and this is with hunters on what
>> is presumed to be gameland).
>> > I am interested in others' thoughts on the matter.
>> > Sincerely,Melissa Rooney
>> > > Dear Council,
>> > >
>> > > Once again I'm informing you of our latest disturbing experience with
>> a "law abiding" hunter.
>> > >
>> > > As background information, there is a narrow spit of land between
>> Lake Park and Lyon's Farm north of Scott King Rd. that was included as NC
>> Gameland as part of the Jordan Lake 240 foot contour line. When this area
>> was designated as Gameland, there was only the beginning of construction of
>> Lake Park in the late 1970's. To the west was nothing but undisturbed
>> forest save for a few homes scattered along the dirt roads all the way to
>> NC 751. The distance between Lake Park and Lyon's Farm encompassing this
>> Gameland is between 300 feet and 500. Clearly this area should no longer be
>> part of Gameland due to its proximity to homes.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Today in the late afternoon, a hunter trespassed on my neighbor's and
>> my property to access the northern edge of Gameland, less than 150 feet
>> from my property to set up a his deer stand aimed into a wooded area that
>> is within the city limits. I watched him as he scoped into this area and
>> advised him that he was aiming into the city limits and I would call the
>> police if I saw him shoot illegally. I further advised him to turn his
>> stand around facing into Gameland where he would be legal. In the two plus
>> hours he was there, he maintained his aim into the city limits.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > I alerted a neighbor to the hunting activity as he was about to walk
>> his dog in this area. He walked down to our property with his dog and
>> talked to my husband who was finishing up yard work and at that point, not
>> interacting with the hunter. By this time it was dark and my neighbor
>> shined a light on the hunter and asked him what he was doing. The hunter
>> taunted my husband and neighbor saying he would be up in the stand all
>> night and "hoped" his coyote calls wouldn't wake us up. Then he made a few
>> coyote calls to prove his point. The hunter opined to my neighbor that he
>> didn't think it wise for him to be talking like he did to someone who had
>> weapons, clearly a veiled threat. It was now past legal hunting time (being
>> more than one half hour after sunset)so my husband asked the hunter if he
>> knew what time it was. The hunter either didn't answer or didn't know. My
>> husband walked into the house and called 911 having felt threatened by this
>> man.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > When the male deputy and my husband walked to the rear of our
>> property they were greeted by the hunter shining a light on them and
>> mockingly saying, "Hello ladies." The deputy said, "Durham County Sheriff's
>> Deputy, turn your light off," which the hunter ignored. Upon the second
>> request by the deputy the hunter asked the deputy for identification. The
>> deputy responded, "Don't you see my uniform?" The deputy then informed the
>> hunter that deer hunting season ended one half hour after sunset, it was
>> past that time and this man needed to leave. This hunter had the nerve to
>> ask the deputy to give him a ride to his vehicle which would have meant
>> walking through our property to reach the patrol car. The deputy said he
>> would not give him a ride and waited until the man left the area.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > To say this latest encounter was un-nerving is an understatement. No
>> one should have to put up with this dangerous nonsense. In light of your
>> recent decision, clearly ignorant of the behavior of many hunters, you are
>> putting residents at risk. Have you thought about adjacent property owners
>> not knowing that hunting will occur next to them or that a hunter will know
>> the boundary of the land much less know where 250 from the boundary is or
>> god forbid a child goes into the area and is shot? Do you honestly think
>> hunters will care about these rules should a deer be sighted outside of the
>> legal hunting area?. Law enforcement has enough to do without responding to
>> dangerous situations created by your unanimous decision.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Citizens should not be on the front line ensuring that hunters obey
>> the rules. I trust none of you live where you've dealt with this type of
>> situation. Again, I am asking you to overturn your bow hunting decision,
>> and failing that, at the very least land owners who allow hunting should
>> clearly mark their property lines identifying the property as hunting land
>> as well as mark the 250 foot no hunting buffer, notify adjacent property
>> owners and/or register their property with the city as hunting land.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Considering this latest unsettling encounter with a person who holds
>> his right to hunt above the safety of others (and he is not an isolated
>> case), I believe a response from you is warranted. Again, please reconsider
>> your decision. I'd rather take my chances with the deer, at least they
>> don't retaliate, something I don't put past this hunter.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Sincerely,
>> > >
>> > > Carol Young
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Durham INC Mailing List
>> >
>> > list at durham-inc.org
>> > http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Durham INC Mailing List
>> > list at durham-inc.org
>> >
>> > http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
>> >
>> >
>> > -- Dorothy Potter SnyderThe Art of Language
>> > 919-237-2931www.dorothypotterspanish.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Dorothy Potter SnyderThe Art of
>> Language919-237-2931www.dorothypotterspanish.com
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Durham INC Mailing List
>> > list at durham-inc.org
>> > http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Durham INC Mailing List
>> list at durham-inc.org
>> http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Dorothy Potter Snyder*
> *The Art of Language*
> *919-237-2931 <919-237-2931>*
> www.dorothypotterspanish.com
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
> Durham INC Mailing List
> list at durham-inc.org
> http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
>
>


-- 
*Dorothy Potter Snyder*
*The Art of Language*
*919-237-2931*
www.dorothypotterspanish.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20140111/c6520f0a/attachment-0001.html>