[Durham INC] council's decision regarding deer hunting

[Dorothy Potter Snyder]

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*
www.dorothypotterspanish.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20140111/412e73d7/attachment.html>