Contraception is a federally approved method, but Ohio prevents it in Ohio Administrative Code. Contraception prevents the herd from growing while lethal methods improve the strength of the surviving herd that will then be more successful in breeding.
Ohio Laws favor lethal methods of deer management, mainly because of the conflict of interest between ODOW and hunting interests.
Contraception has the advantage of stabilizing the size of the deer herd, without lethal methods and without rebound. Despite this method being approved by the FDA, Ohio continues to ban this method to reduce the competition to hunting and the revenue it generates.
In the ORC see 1531.06 Sec K and OAC 1501:31-25-01 Sec K
ORC 1531.06 (K) The chief shall adopt rules establishing standards and guidelines for the administration of contraceptive chemicals to noncaptive wild animals. The rules may specify chemical delivery methods and devices and monitoring requirements.
OAC 1501:31-25-01 (K) It shall be unlawful to use or provide any contraceptive drugs, substances or chemicals to any free ranging wild animal. Provided further, persons may request permission from the chief of the division of wildlife to use contraceptives for scientific research. The chief may issue a conditional permit in writing after a person has submitted in writing the proposal which outlines the scientific research project.
Back to Main Site
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Culling Facts
There are many assumptions surrounding "deer culling", people assume that more deer results in increased deer vehicle accidents (DVAs) and therefore the "solution" is to have less deer.
It is a FACT that killing deer makes the surviving herd stronger, increases their breeding rate so that more killing needs to be done to maintain the herd size. This becomes an ongoing maintenance burden.
It is a FACT that unless you kill all the deer that some will remain to run in front of cars, so killing is ineffective in addressing DVAs.
It is a FACT that in the quest to improve DVA safety, that culling raises its own safety issues by discharging deadly weapons in highly populated urban environments.
It is a FACT that areas with far larger deer herds who couldn't possibly afford continuing killing have successfully deployed DVA deterrents that are far more effective, target ALL deer and are much cheaper than culling.
It is a FACT that decision makers in Solon are hunters and have no interest in these cheaper more effective non-lethal alternatives.
It is a FACT that the people Solon consulted (USDA Wildlife Services and ODNR/ODOW) derive the majority of their funding from Hunting interests and therefore have a conflict of interest.
Let's stick with the FACTS.
Culling/Killing is an expensive experiment that has failed, it is time to try something different.
Educate yourself about DVA deterrents, click here for the Main Web Site page and click the sidebar labels for Lethal, Non-Lethal, and DVA for other Blog posts on those topics.
Back to Main Site
It is a FACT that killing deer makes the surviving herd stronger, increases their breeding rate so that more killing needs to be done to maintain the herd size. This becomes an ongoing maintenance burden.
It is a FACT that unless you kill all the deer that some will remain to run in front of cars, so killing is ineffective in addressing DVAs.
It is a FACT that in the quest to improve DVA safety, that culling raises its own safety issues by discharging deadly weapons in highly populated urban environments.
It is a FACT that areas with far larger deer herds who couldn't possibly afford continuing killing have successfully deployed DVA deterrents that are far more effective, target ALL deer and are much cheaper than culling.
It is a FACT that decision makers in Solon are hunters and have no interest in these cheaper more effective non-lethal alternatives.
It is a FACT that the people Solon consulted (USDA Wildlife Services and ODNR/ODOW) derive the majority of their funding from Hunting interests and therefore have a conflict of interest.
Let's stick with the FACTS.
Culling/Killing is an expensive experiment that has failed, it is time to try something different.
Educate yourself about DVA deterrents, click here for the Main Web Site page and click the sidebar labels for Lethal, Non-Lethal, and DVA for other Blog posts on those topics.
Back to Main Site
Friday, March 11, 2011
Safety Ambiguity
We constantly hear about the "deer problem" is a safety issue. Some people hear the word safety and give a nod without further thought, others ask a few questions and they are told about DVAs. No one asks about the "solution" and its safety. Well some people decided to videotape the "solution", White Buffalo culling and gave the video tape to a Cleveland SWAT member, someone with a very detailed understanding of using firearms in a confined urban environment.
His assessment -- He was disturbed and stated that the footage he saw was dangerous to local residents.
Bakos summation2
Reducing accidents is a worthy goal, but how are we going to explain that for the price of safety, someone was shot.
Back to Main Site
His assessment -- He was disturbed and stated that the footage he saw was dangerous to local residents.
Bakos summation2
Reducing accidents is a worthy goal, but how are we going to explain that for the price of safety, someone was shot.
Back to Main Site
Deer Management
At 52 min into the Safety Meeting we saw the city ready to spend $180K to repeat a failed "solution" to a problem they can't even articulate.
They killed deer for 5 years at over $ 3/4 million and the deer are still here, while they ignore cheaper more effective non-lethal methods. They talk about "doing it" and "deer problem" but they can't even say exactly what the problem is, but that doesn't stop them from having a solution. They want to spend $30K to count the deer they've already decided to kill, why? They also got only one qoute, shouldn't there be a competitive bid? They are counting deer in Glenwillow, but can't say why? Are we killing their deer for free, just like they got cheap fire protection, then refused to pay us a fair price?
Hunter Stanek asked US govt groups who are paid by how much killing they do and guess what they advised? Hunting. And what tactics did they use FUD, fear, uncertainty and doubt and outright lies. They mentioned Lyme disease which isn't an Ohio problem. They said deer get "aclaimated" to Streiter Lites, despite Kraus' observation, despite 10 year studies showing their effectiveness for the whole time with large herds of deer and elk in Montana. Does that mean Solon deer are smarter than Montana deer? Or more likely they think Solonites are to dumb not to question them.
For more information on this topic
Web: http://SolonDeer.com/
Blog: http://blog.solondeer.com/
email:SolonDeer@gmail.com
While the city is busy "managing deer" who's managing them?
Back to Main Site
They killed deer for 5 years at over $ 3/4 million and the deer are still here, while they ignore cheaper more effective non-lethal methods. They talk about "doing it" and "deer problem" but they can't even say exactly what the problem is, but that doesn't stop them from having a solution. They want to spend $30K to count the deer they've already decided to kill, why? They also got only one qoute, shouldn't there be a competitive bid? They are counting deer in Glenwillow, but can't say why? Are we killing their deer for free, just like they got cheap fire protection, then refused to pay us a fair price?
Hunter Stanek asked US govt groups who are paid by how much killing they do and guess what they advised? Hunting. And what tactics did they use FUD, fear, uncertainty and doubt and outright lies. They mentioned Lyme disease which isn't an Ohio problem. They said deer get "aclaimated" to Streiter Lites, despite Kraus' observation, despite 10 year studies showing their effectiveness for the whole time with large herds of deer and elk in Montana. Does that mean Solon deer are smarter than Montana deer? Or more likely they think Solonites are to dumb not to question them.
For more information on this topic
Web: http://SolonDeer.com/
Blog: http://blog.solondeer.com/
email:SolonDeer@gmail.com
While the city is busy "managing deer" who's managing them?
Back to Main Site
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Public Speech
Typically Solon has not placed limits on public comment although there is a provision in the charter that gives the chair discretion to limit comments to 5 minutes or not have public comments at all. In practice these "gag" rules are only invoked for "hot" issues.
Last month's Safety Meeting on allowing Hunting in the city caused the usual few attendees to ballon to over 35 and also included print media as well as TV.
Russo, the chair of the Safety Committee responded to the large crowd by instituting a 2 min limit (down from the charter's 5 min) and a 30 min max (no such provision in the charter). For this he was roundly criticized even by his political supporters.
This month's meeting, Public Works Commissioner Stanek brought in the ODOW and USDA to speak of a comprehensive plan for nearly 1 hr consisting of all maner of lethal methods while quickly dismissing non-lethal methods. At no time did any city official address the huge costs of lethal methods compared to the lower costs and higher effectiveness of non-lethal methods.
After this very bias presentation, by people who get their funding by Hunting, Russo allowed the citizens to speak for 30 min. After 20 min, he halted the discussion. To his credit, and no doubt because of political pressure, he did allow each of the 4 people to speak for 5 minutes each. He even allowed the citizens to ask questions, many weren't answered but at least they were asked on the record.
This in combination with Councilman Toni Richmond's lack of tolerance for questioning of her Bainbridge Rd Sidewalk Survey and her suggestion that Council limit public speech is a disturbing trend of intolerance to the citizens to whom they represent. Both these councilman come up for re-election this year. How ironic the city is holding it's first annual tolerance fair this Sunday, will city officials learn to be tolerant of their own constituents differing views?
Back to Main Site
Last month's Safety Meeting on allowing Hunting in the city caused the usual few attendees to ballon to over 35 and also included print media as well as TV.
Russo, the chair of the Safety Committee responded to the large crowd by instituting a 2 min limit (down from the charter's 5 min) and a 30 min max (no such provision in the charter). For this he was roundly criticized even by his political supporters.
This month's meeting, Public Works Commissioner Stanek brought in the ODOW and USDA to speak of a comprehensive plan for nearly 1 hr consisting of all maner of lethal methods while quickly dismissing non-lethal methods. At no time did any city official address the huge costs of lethal methods compared to the lower costs and higher effectiveness of non-lethal methods.
After this very bias presentation, by people who get their funding by Hunting, Russo allowed the citizens to speak for 30 min. After 20 min, he halted the discussion. To his credit, and no doubt because of political pressure, he did allow each of the 4 people to speak for 5 minutes each. He even allowed the citizens to ask questions, many weren't answered but at least they were asked on the record.
This in combination with Councilman Toni Richmond's lack of tolerance for questioning of her Bainbridge Rd Sidewalk Survey and her suggestion that Council limit public speech is a disturbing trend of intolerance to the citizens to whom they represent. Both these councilman come up for re-election this year. How ironic the city is holding it's first annual tolerance fair this Sunday, will city officials learn to be tolerant of their own constituents differing views?
Back to Main Site
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
March Meeting
Be sure to attend the March Safety Meeting, Wed at City Hall at 6pm. The USDA Wildlife Services will be there tonight along with the ODOW (Ohio Dept of Wildlife), both whom support wildlife slaughter and hunting. Why are we talking about solutions rather than the "problem"? Starting with the problem will lead to non-lethal solutions that they are not interested in...
Solon Flyer March 2011
True to their reputation, ODOW presented lethal options and glossed over non-lethal options.
The meeting video is here, Councilman Kraus was late so the committee recessed and reconvened at 49 min, Jim Stanek spoke first. At 52 min Scott Peters of ODOW made a powerpoint presentation. At 1 hr 7 min Russo started a question period with Scott Peters. At 1 hr 22 min a speaker from USDA Wildlife Services spoke, he wasn't that prepared and asked "What are your goals" and got no answers. This Federal official said "He's here to help", which is a not so funny joke. He said he could help the city, for a fee. Since he got no answers, he called Scott back up. At 1 hr 42 min, Russo allowed public comment to "ask questions" for a max of 30 min, this was an unexpected surprise, we didn't know he'd let the public question them. At 2 hr 2 min, Russo brought the discussion back to deer counting, ranging from $5-30K, that the committee approved. At 2 hr 11 min the topic was complete and they moved on to other business.
Back to Main Site
Solon Flyer March 2011
True to their reputation, ODOW presented lethal options and glossed over non-lethal options.
The meeting video is here, Councilman Kraus was late so the committee recessed and reconvened at 49 min, Jim Stanek spoke first. At 52 min Scott Peters of ODOW made a powerpoint presentation. At 1 hr 7 min Russo started a question period with Scott Peters. At 1 hr 22 min a speaker from USDA Wildlife Services spoke, he wasn't that prepared and asked "What are your goals" and got no answers. This Federal official said "He's here to help", which is a not so funny joke. He said he could help the city, for a fee. Since he got no answers, he called Scott back up. At 1 hr 42 min, Russo allowed public comment to "ask questions" for a max of 30 min, this was an unexpected surprise, we didn't know he'd let the public question them. At 2 hr 2 min, Russo brought the discussion back to deer counting, ranging from $5-30K, that the committee approved. At 2 hr 11 min the topic was complete and they moved on to other business.
Back to Main Site
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
What is the Deer "Problem"
This is the first question to ask. If you don't know what problem you are trying to solve, then your actions won't lead to an effective solution.
If the "problem" is DVAs, the solution is a non-lethal DVA detterent, its cheaper, it targets all deer, only when cars are on the road. Lethal methods, target some deer, the remaining deer are free to cross the road, resulting in a DVA, so its a game of odds and less effective. Lethal options are expensive and because of rebound effect, must be continued indefinitely. A DVA deterrent is installed once and continues to work year after year with modest maintenance.
If the "problem" is damage to gardens, it is far cheaper and more effective to use proven deer proofing gardening methods. Once again, lethal methods are playing the odds.
Back to Main Site
If the "problem" is DVAs, the solution is a non-lethal DVA detterent, its cheaper, it targets all deer, only when cars are on the road. Lethal methods, target some deer, the remaining deer are free to cross the road, resulting in a DVA, so its a game of odds and less effective. Lethal options are expensive and because of rebound effect, must be continued indefinitely. A DVA deterrent is installed once and continues to work year after year with modest maintenance.
If the "problem" is damage to gardens, it is far cheaper and more effective to use proven deer proofing gardening methods. Once again, lethal methods are playing the odds.
Back to Main Site
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)