Thursday, January 16, 2014

Um, I've Got A Better Idea...

#1 Blogdaughter sends this one in...

Taxpayers doling out too much dough to control deer, critics charge
From New York to California, local governments are spending taxpayer dollars to sterilize female deer, but critics say the approach is a misguided, ineffective and “incredibly expensive” approach to thinning out the herds that has become a suburban scourge.

While some communities have used lethal means to curb the exploding population of deer, which roam backyards, destroy gardens and wander into traffic, others have taken what they see as a more humane approach — tranquilizing female deer and removing their ovaries.
One community in New York spent $35K to sterilize a dozen does in one month. $35K. Whereas if you granted hunting permits you could have made money, gotten more does out of circulation, and actually made a difference in the deer population. But we all know that hunting means icky guns, so G-d forbid we take the simple, humane way of keeping deer population in check. And yes, hunting is a humane way of regulating deer numbers - certainly more humane than having them get hit by cars or starving to death.

Even though studies done by conservation groups have shown that sterilization programs don't work, cost towns a lot of money, and are generally traumatic to the deer, more areas want to go through with efforts. Rather than admit that those evil hunters actually perform a vital service, they're going to burn up resources, finances, and time undertaking a solution that has been proven to not work. This is what they call "common sense"...

Personally, I blame Walt Disney and "Bambi"...

That is all.

10 comments:

ShallNotBeInfringed said...

I wonder if the hospitals will star serving venison now that it has been "sterilized"?

Armed Texan said...

I agree with you, but let's just take hunting out of the mix for a moment. If you've gone through the trouble of tranquilizing and trapping the doe, WTF are you then performing surgery on it? Just euthanize the damn critter and make dog food or fertilizer out of it. As Dennis Prager is fond of saying, you have to have a college education to be this stupid.

Stretch said...

"Average costs are about $1,200 per deer, ..."
Compare to $54.59 I paid to Fla. for a 10 day out of state permit and deer tag. OK, so I didn't get a deer but that's INCOME vs. EXPENSE.
I'm sure who ever came up with this "idea" has a degree in Public Administration and not in Wildlife Management or Forestry.

Dave H said...

I've got no problem with hunting, but turning some of the hunters I know loose in the suburbs with an in-town hunting permit worries me. There are more opportunities for an oopsie, and an oopsie with a shotgun is bad news.

But I agree that catch, sterilize, & release is BS. Catch & freeze makes much more sense. There are food banks that will happily take venison from hunters who just wanted a trophy. I doubt they can tell the difference between one taken with a shotgun and one taken with a trap.

Or if the deer was tranquilized, I'll bet its street value of its meat would be quite a bit more.

Geodkyt said...

Even PETA is opposed to the surgical interventions -- but that's because they are afraid of inflicting psychological trauma on Bambi.

As for hunting in the actual 'burbs, I'd feel more comfortable if it was an archery season only, for the reason Dave ststes.

Phssthpok said...

It's predators KILLING THE DEER in nature that keep their numbers in check, and HUNTERS fill that ecological niche.

Please...somebody show me the ecological niche in nature that subdues and sterilizes a deer..THEN RELEASES IT.

Old NFO said...

Stupidity personified...

Stan said...

The stupid things that people will do with other peoples money never ceases to amaze me.

Anonymous said...

Archery Season? The deer around here are so used to people we could have Baseball Bat season.

ZerCool said...

The community in question used to be local to me. It is a VERY affluent community adjacent to Cornell. Mostly professors and retirees, plenty of snowbirds, and lots of bleeding hearts. The loudest opposition to the planned deer cull was by imported/non-resident protesters - and it was always enough to sway the village board to vote against it.

I had to hammer the brakes more times than I can count driving in that area - and none of the deer looked healthy. Saw a 10- or 12-point buck one night, and none of the tines looked much bigger around than a #2 pencil. I remarked on that to a hunting buddy, who noted, "It's hard to get big on ornamental azaleas."

I suspect they will allow nuisance deer tags to be used - but almost none of the hunters will be able to secure all the necessary signatures to have a place to hunt. Those that do will have a deer run to an inaccessible place after being hit, stirring up more trouble and neighbor disputes.

I'm real glad I don't live around there anymore. :-)