Despite objections to moving forward, council discussed the plan and had it on first reading, no action was taken, the full council was not present. Next council is on a special date Sept 7 at 7:30 due to labor day.
The meeting video is here, public comment from 10:30 min to 13:20 min, the plan discussed (item 9) from 25:20 min to 29 min and comments from Russo from 57:20 min to 58:50 min.
Stanek forwarded an agreement with the USDA WS to the law director for review. The quoted price of $128K was to kill 400-500 deer. Stanek further said that if the city of Solon had to cancel the program they would only incur costs up to that point and not for cancelling the contract.
Russo asked Stanek to correct a misstatement by the Solon Sun who editorialized that lethal and contraception methods should be used together. Ohio law doesn't allow this effective method to be used.
Lobe warned that the ballot initiative would repeal any inconsistent measures they pass, he said he's not telling them not to go forward, he's just stating that it could be repealed.
Russo discussed how much food banks appreciate donations of venison.
Near the end of the meeting, Russo also disputed the claim that the plan concentrated on lethal alternatives, he claimed it was better than previous plans that did not mention non-lethal, that last point may be true, but it doesn't answer the initial concern - Why doesn't this plan give equal consideration to non-lethal methods. Russo defended the council's decision to move forward because the city can't assume the Deer Preservation Act will pass and need to be prepared to move forward. The point Russo was missing is that 1600+ people spoke up to ask for this to be on the ballot. His response was that some of the 1600 people may be against it, but again he's missing that ALL of them wanted it on the ballot.
Back to Main Site
Showing posts with label Plan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Plan. Show all posts
Monday, August 15, 2011
Friday, June 10, 2011
Comprehensive Deer Management
That's what we're being told we're getting, let's take a closer look.
They start with a little history, then discuss the major safety problem, Deer Vehicles Accidents (DVAs) and promptly state that none of the solutions are "proven". Later they discuss the other problem, landscape damage, list all the plants deer don't eat, then say that if there are "too many" then they'll eat anything.
How many is too many? Well they just pick an imaginary number (see Cultural Carrying Capacity), and the number they've chosen is half as many as we've ever had, even during the height of culling. Why?
If you pick a low enough number, then you'll always have justification for killing more deer.
They mention "public information and education" briefly, they admit this is a sensitive issue, and the solution is to "educate" the public. Clearly they don't really want critical evaluation of this sensitive issue, they've made that clear with their adversarial stance on all opposing views. Just think of this as the propaganda component of the plan.
Next they have the monitoring component. They'll measure citizen complaints about deer damage (DVA and garden). But they don't mention collecting info on culling/hunting accidents, suffering deer outside the hunting areas, compliance with culling/hunting regulations. In keeping with their one sided lethal agenda, they aren't monitoring things that aren't part of their lethal program. They also mention citizen surveys, again just the complaints about deer, not about the city sponsored killing.
They'll also count the deer, it will always be higher than the new low target, so they'll always be justified to kill more. And of course they'll count the number of deer they kill, so it looks like they are doing something useful for the hundreds of thousands of dollars they'll be spending every year.
Under non-lethal alternatives they mainly list plants deer don't like, then point out that deer will eat anything. They mention repellents and then say that they won't work if the deer are very hungry.
They also list a feeding ban on citizens so sharpshooters can be the only one to lure the deer with bait stations to their own demise.
Two very effective non-lethal methods (contraception and relocation) are listed as "non-traditional" because the hunting interests won't allow them in Ohio.
Then comes the real meat of the plan, the killing methods (Captive Bolt, Bowhunting, and Sharpshooting) with nary a downside mentioned.
Nothing about rebound, nothing about the prior 5 yr culling failure.
So in conclusion they mention everything,
but will be doing only one thing - KILLING!
Back to Main Site
They start with a little history, then discuss the major safety problem, Deer Vehicles Accidents (DVAs) and promptly state that none of the solutions are "proven". Later they discuss the other problem, landscape damage, list all the plants deer don't eat, then say that if there are "too many" then they'll eat anything.
How many is too many? Well they just pick an imaginary number (see Cultural Carrying Capacity), and the number they've chosen is half as many as we've ever had, even during the height of culling. Why?
If you pick a low enough number, then you'll always have justification for killing more deer.
They mention "public information and education" briefly, they admit this is a sensitive issue, and the solution is to "educate" the public. Clearly they don't really want critical evaluation of this sensitive issue, they've made that clear with their adversarial stance on all opposing views. Just think of this as the propaganda component of the plan.
Next they have the monitoring component. They'll measure citizen complaints about deer damage (DVA and garden). But they don't mention collecting info on culling/hunting accidents, suffering deer outside the hunting areas, compliance with culling/hunting regulations. In keeping with their one sided lethal agenda, they aren't monitoring things that aren't part of their lethal program. They also mention citizen surveys, again just the complaints about deer, not about the city sponsored killing.
They'll also count the deer, it will always be higher than the new low target, so they'll always be justified to kill more. And of course they'll count the number of deer they kill, so it looks like they are doing something useful for the hundreds of thousands of dollars they'll be spending every year.
Under non-lethal alternatives they mainly list plants deer don't like, then point out that deer will eat anything. They mention repellents and then say that they won't work if the deer are very hungry.
They also list a feeding ban on citizens so sharpshooters can be the only one to lure the deer with bait stations to their own demise.
Two very effective non-lethal methods (contraception and relocation) are listed as "non-traditional" because the hunting interests won't allow them in Ohio.
Then comes the real meat of the plan, the killing methods (Captive Bolt, Bowhunting, and Sharpshooting) with nary a downside mentioned.
Nothing about rebound, nothing about the prior 5 yr culling failure.
So in conclusion they mention everything,
but will be doing only one thing - KILLING!
Back to Main Site
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Still no costs
A plan was recommended to Council by the Safety Commitee, its been discussed for over a half year and still no specific costs are available.
Russo introduced the discussion of the plan commenting on how much work had been done. Pelunis questioned what the plan would cost, Stanek still had no answer and was asked to obtain costs for the next council meeting on June 24.
Stanek said we need to decide how many deer to kill, but how will they do that when they haven't obtained an accurate count yet.
Russo insisted that bow hunting was needed to reduce costs of sharpshooting. He compared costs of sharpshooting at $400 / deer and bow hunting "essentially" $0 / yr. Kraus said he "isn't comfortable" with bow hunting.
See the Council Meeting here, discussion starts at 1 hr 2 min until 1 hr 12 min. At 1 hr 18 min, two residents spoke in opposition to bow hunting until 1 hr 26 min, at 1 hr 28 min Russo challenged the public comments as Stanek did at 1 hr 35 min.
Russo stated that the hunting would be on city land, but App 1 C, pg 14, 2nd section talks about lands used with no such restriction. While Russo is quick to complain of other's misstatements, his own record of misstatements is poor.
Russo also took the opportunity to plug the city's web site as a source for information about the deer mgt issue.
It was pointed out that an update at the last Safety meeting inserted words to the effect that we'd follow the ODOW rules, which is a lower standard than the proposed bow hunting which both ODOW and USDA WS referred to as "over regulated". Stanek mentioned something about "expanding" the bow hunting after people got used to it to save money. The way to expand bow hunting would be to reduce regulations to the state minimum.
While the lack of costs was a major reason why council could take no action, Kraus also mentioned the absence of Councilman Bell. Both these shortcomings are to be addressed at the next council meeting and it would be possible to pass it under suspension on that day.
Back to Main Site
Russo introduced the discussion of the plan commenting on how much work had been done. Pelunis questioned what the plan would cost, Stanek still had no answer and was asked to obtain costs for the next council meeting on June 24.
Stanek said we need to decide how many deer to kill, but how will they do that when they haven't obtained an accurate count yet.
Russo insisted that bow hunting was needed to reduce costs of sharpshooting. He compared costs of sharpshooting at $400 / deer and bow hunting "essentially" $0 / yr. Kraus said he "isn't comfortable" with bow hunting.
See the Council Meeting here, discussion starts at 1 hr 2 min until 1 hr 12 min. At 1 hr 18 min, two residents spoke in opposition to bow hunting until 1 hr 26 min, at 1 hr 28 min Russo challenged the public comments as Stanek did at 1 hr 35 min.
Russo stated that the hunting would be on city land, but App 1 C, pg 14, 2nd section talks about lands used with no such restriction. While Russo is quick to complain of other's misstatements, his own record of misstatements is poor.
Russo also took the opportunity to plug the city's web site as a source for information about the deer mgt issue.
It was pointed out that an update at the last Safety meeting inserted words to the effect that we'd follow the ODOW rules, which is a lower standard than the proposed bow hunting which both ODOW and USDA WS referred to as "over regulated". Stanek mentioned something about "expanding" the bow hunting after people got used to it to save money. The way to expand bow hunting would be to reduce regulations to the state minimum.
While the lack of costs was a major reason why council could take no action, Kraus also mentioned the absence of Councilman Bell. Both these shortcomings are to be addressed at the next council meeting and it would be possible to pass it under suspension on that day.
Back to Main Site
Friday, June 3, 2011
Plan? What Plan?
Can you call it a plan?
First of all most of the content came from Granville a small rural town, add a new front page, throw in some Solon graphs and viola, you have a comprehensive custom Solon plan. Kraus put this on the record at the last Safety Meeting.
And if copying from Granville weren't enough, they ask ODOW and USDA WS to edit the plan. These two organizations depend on lethal methods for their budget, hardly an unbiased source.
But where's the meat? No specifics, no implementation, no costs, no action plan. What is council "deciding"? They'll be "adopting" an idea, leaving the implementation to Stanek, an avid hunter.
Stanek was asked last month to obtain a cost for someone else (USDA WS) implementing the whole plan. Stanek did not do that. Russo reminded him of that request.
Kraus tried to remove bow hunting, Russo objected and wanted to recommend the "plan" to council.
Kraus asked about competitors to White Buffalo, Stanek said that there aren't many competitors, not with their "credentials" who would do it as "professionally". But then Stanek admitted that if we were to consider White Buffalo, we may want to "exclude an individual", seeming to admit that the city has a problem with someone from White Buffalo.
Russo was concerned that they act in time to get this done this year.
For the original plan, twice updated since, see this article.
At the last safety meeting where the plan was unveiled, the "Deer Park" was removed because if we feed deer, ODOW will not grant a license to kill deer and Russo was insistent about needing to kill deer.
At this meeting, the following changes were made:
The meeting video can be found here, the deer topic runs from 37 min to 1 hour 1 min.
Back to Main Site
First of all most of the content came from Granville a small rural town, add a new front page, throw in some Solon graphs and viola, you have a comprehensive custom Solon plan. Kraus put this on the record at the last Safety Meeting.
And if copying from Granville weren't enough, they ask ODOW and USDA WS to edit the plan. These two organizations depend on lethal methods for their budget, hardly an unbiased source.
But where's the meat? No specifics, no implementation, no costs, no action plan. What is council "deciding"? They'll be "adopting" an idea, leaving the implementation to Stanek, an avid hunter.
Stanek was asked last month to obtain a cost for someone else (USDA WS) implementing the whole plan. Stanek did not do that. Russo reminded him of that request.
Kraus tried to remove bow hunting, Russo objected and wanted to recommend the "plan" to council.
Kraus asked about competitors to White Buffalo, Stanek said that there aren't many competitors, not with their "credentials" who would do it as "professionally". But then Stanek admitted that if we were to consider White Buffalo, we may want to "exclude an individual", seeming to admit that the city has a problem with someone from White Buffalo.
Russo was concerned that they act in time to get this done this year.
- The first action would be "public education" and we've started that. I think that is the "deer damage" form and MetroParks link on the city's home page.
- Next would be to start bow hunting late Sept 2011.
- Culling effort would begin early 2012.
For the original plan, twice updated since, see this article.
At the last safety meeting where the plan was unveiled, the "Deer Park" was removed because if we feed deer, ODOW will not grant a license to kill deer and Russo was insistent about needing to kill deer.
At this meeting, the following changes were made:
- On pg 6, A disclaimer that if there are "too many" deer they'll eat anything, so even deer resistant planting could be deemed ineffective. Reinforcing the idea that killing is required.
- On pg 9, #2, Fixed a typo saying that a method was impracticable.
- Emphasized that "Trap and Euthinize" (Captive Bolt) requires an ODOW permit and that the city must be involved and that residents can't directly approach the ODOW to get a permit.
- Both Peters of the ODOW and USDA WS suggested that we are "over regulating" bow hunting. Stanek believes this is "absolutely necessary" in the beginning because of citizens concerns. This regulation can be viewed as safe guards to the residents. Then in the next breath, Stanek contradicted himself and got the committee to pass an amendment adding that we would "follow ODOW standards in use in neighboring communities" (who don't "over regulate" to protect their citizens).
The meeting video can be found here, the deer topic runs from 37 min to 1 hour 1 min.
Back to Main Site
Friday, May 13, 2011
Long awaited Deer Management Plan
The Administration promised a "Comprehensive Deer Management Plan" in May. Its May and we saw the plan. Its unimpressive, especially when you consider that the only thing unique about it is a few graphs.
Councilman Kraus touched a nerve when he called Stanek on the fact that it seems word for word the same as the "Granville Plan", a small rural community nothing like Solon. When challenged if comparing their needs to ours is "Apples to Apples", Stanek bristled stating its "Apples to Apples to Apples to Apples".
The plan predictably mentioned everything, but said nothing. It mentions many non-lethal options, then promptly dismisses them as "ineffective". They did say they'd "continue to maintain" the Strieter Lites which inexplicably have 500 ft gaps to reduce their effectiveness.
The one item they definitely wanted removed though is the "deer park" idea, it is number "5 Supplemental Feedings" on page 9 of the draft plan. The ODOW would not issue a nuisance permit to allow killing deer to a city who was feeding deer. This is a deal breaker for the city, they won't do something that will prevent lethal options.
In the lethal department, everything was on the table, Captive Bolt, Bow Hunting, and Sharpshooting, A question was raised about lethal options cheaper than Sharpshooting, one would think this would have been done, but Stanek said he'd look into it.
Captive Bolt, or as they refer to it, "Traps and Euthanasia", is among the cruelest methods, despite its nice name. The deer is caught in a trap, struggles to get free and then is shot with a bolt in the head. The plan mentions that our Animal Warden could do this, he runs a side business in Pepperpike doing it.
Bow Hunting was raised again and it appears the same draft plan was added to the end of this new plan. Our former police chief and our former deer sharpshooter (White Buffalo) both criticized this option. Russo said it won't be people "running around with bows and arrows", actually crossbows are more deadly. It was also implied that large areas would be used, but Stanek said that was unnecessary when he discussed this a few months ago.
The implication was that this deadly activity would be on large remote lands. The last program had nearly 70 kill sites, one may be near you!
The city's target deer population is 206-309, a new all time low that will require killing over 700 deer the first year,
The city mentioned other local communities with deer killing plans including ---
Deer Management Plan 1105a
A copy of the plan is on Solon's web site here. The meeting video is here, Deer Mgt starts at 28 min in. The issue is covered as Deer Management under the Residents tab here.
The Solon Patch, made live comments here, you can follow the SolonPatch here, and published a breaking news story : Deer Plan Provides Lethal Options, But Decision Rests With City Council.
Back to Main Site
Councilman Kraus touched a nerve when he called Stanek on the fact that it seems word for word the same as the "Granville Plan", a small rural community nothing like Solon. When challenged if comparing their needs to ours is "Apples to Apples", Stanek bristled stating its "Apples to Apples to Apples to Apples".
The plan predictably mentioned everything, but said nothing. It mentions many non-lethal options, then promptly dismisses them as "ineffective". They did say they'd "continue to maintain" the Strieter Lites which inexplicably have 500 ft gaps to reduce their effectiveness.
The one item they definitely wanted removed though is the "deer park" idea, it is number "5 Supplemental Feedings" on page 9 of the draft plan. The ODOW would not issue a nuisance permit to allow killing deer to a city who was feeding deer. This is a deal breaker for the city, they won't do something that will prevent lethal options.
In the lethal department, everything was on the table, Captive Bolt, Bow Hunting, and Sharpshooting, A question was raised about lethal options cheaper than Sharpshooting, one would think this would have been done, but Stanek said he'd look into it.
Captive Bolt, or as they refer to it, "Traps and Euthanasia", is among the cruelest methods, despite its nice name. The deer is caught in a trap, struggles to get free and then is shot with a bolt in the head. The plan mentions that our Animal Warden could do this, he runs a side business in Pepperpike doing it.
Bow Hunting was raised again and it appears the same draft plan was added to the end of this new plan. Our former police chief and our former deer sharpshooter (White Buffalo) both criticized this option. Russo said it won't be people "running around with bows and arrows", actually crossbows are more deadly. It was also implied that large areas would be used, but Stanek said that was unnecessary when he discussed this a few months ago.
The implication was that this deadly activity would be on large remote lands. The last program had nearly 70 kill sites, one may be near you!
The city's target deer population is 206-309, a new all time low that will require killing over 700 deer the first year,
The city mentioned other local communities with deer killing plans including ---
Deer Management Plan 1105a
A copy of the plan is on Solon's web site here. The meeting video is here, Deer Mgt starts at 28 min in. The issue is covered as Deer Management under the Residents tab here.
The Solon Patch, made live comments here, you can follow the SolonPatch here, and published a breaking news story : Deer Plan Provides Lethal Options, But Decision Rests With City Council.
Back to Main Site
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)