[Durham INC] council's decision regarding deer hunting

[nutryb at mindspring.com]

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