Thursday, March 31, 2011

Attention, residents: Solon will start deer culling again.

Solon will once again be rolling out the red carpet for their wildlife deer assassin, Anthony DeNicola, president of White Buffalo.

Here it is, year number 5, in the two-year deer management plan and Solon officials have deemed this ethical travesty a success.

I find it abhorrent that Solon officials define success as a high body count. I find it equally abhorrent that Solon has added annual deer slaughter to its list of the mundane winter schedule -i.e., snow plowing, salting streets, slaughtering deer, putting up Christmas lights, etc. with such thoughtlessness and ruthlessness. Who is representing the moral majority?

Since the decision makers rubber stamp the continued slaughter, without putting any additional measures in place, we are on the predicted treadmill of slaughter.

Why would Solon, in these economical times, be so willing to throw good money after bad? I think it's fair for residents to assume that this will be a perpetual expenditure that can't even be justified as paying for itself.

I'll remember this when I go to the voting polls next fall.

Carol Starcher

Saturday, March 26, 2011

Don't Mess with Deer

4498.6. Behind the scenes at the secret deer planning workshop

by solonjoe3, 02/09/11 9:23 AM
Re: Friends, you gotta read. PB by butdad, 02/09/11 9:23 AM

Stanek: I’ve asked White Buffalo to come and present their comprehensive management plan for our review. But before I give them the floor, let me say a few things first. You guys are driving me crazy. Save the deer. Kill the deer. Captive bolts. Birth control. Catch and release. Crossbows. Introduce wolves. And now there is even talk of lassoing deer and raising them like livestock. We need you guys to shut up.

We had a perfectly good plan with the sharpshooters and you shut it down. Now it is going to cost us a lot more to start it back up. This is bad planning. Worse still, all the crazies are going to show up at meetings and start calling everybody Bambi killers. That is no way to run a city. We professionals are supposed to make all decisions in secret and you political guys are supposed to pass them on the consent agenda. What were you people thinking?

Friday, March 25, 2011

20-Year Integrated “Deer Management” Plan

Dear Editor: 

Regarding my “preliminary deer management plan” mentioned in your article titled [Foes cry, but city will seek culling bids] (Sept. 21, 2006),

I’m writing give a more complete picture of it. Culling deer as a means to reduce deer-vehicle accidents is turning neighbor against neighbor and Solon against itself. It is traumatizing children when they witness deer being killed before their eyes in the backyard next door. It is short term at best and makes little sense in the long run. 

As the contract shooter himself said, “Culling deer is like mowing lawn,” meaning that, due to the compensatory rebound effect of deer population, the killing has to be repeated year after year, at about $250,000 a year. Over 10 years, this would cost Solon $2.5 million, and over 20 years, $5 million, not counting inflation. And after all this expenditure, Solon would still be back at Square One, with nothing to show for it. 

All this lowers the deer-vehicle accident (DVA) rate by a mere 25%. On the other hand, if fencing is used, at about $6,000 per mile of fencing, a $250,000 upfront investment would endow Solon with 40 miles of deer-proof fencing, lowering the DVAs to near zero. The life expectancy of a woven wire and/or high tensile wire fence is about 25 years. It is a one-time expense that can solve the DVA problem for over 20 years in one go, with minimal maintenance. 

Other than along high-DVA roadways, the fencing could also skirt the rear of the deer-affected properties, thus keeping deer out of gardens. In addition, there is a full range of other deer repellents (chemical, acoustic, visual and biological). 

In addition to fencing, Strieter Lights have been proven effective in numerous other places (e.g. 40,000 installed since 1980 in British Columbia). The deer will find their own population equilibrium behind the fence by birth-rate adjustment and emigration. 

Most people in Solon or elsewhere do not want deer killed unnecessarily, especially by inhumane means. It is physically impossible for any shooter to make good the one-bullet-in-the-brain-per-deer promise. Many deer have been observed to be body-shot, and shot multiple times. 

Finally, the safety factor. With shooting occurring in over 70 kill-sites within city limits, often within yards of a neighbor’s house, accidents can happen. With all the available alternatives that are safer and less expensive, is Solon City Council willing to accept the responsibility for someone accidentally shot or, God forbid, killed? 

As they are well aware from DVAs, accidents do happen. 

Anthony Marr, founder Heal Our Planet Earth (HOPE) 
4118 West 11th Ave., 
Vancouver, BC, Canada V6R 2L6 

Two Days Makes a Difference


Two Days Makes a Difference

by SolonDeer, 03/20/11 1:02 AM
In the Solon Times - Despite 'sticker shock' aerial deer count planned 03/16/2011

Councilman William I. Russo said the aerial count "is something that's needed just to make sure the deer count has grown. "If there is no increase in deer count, then there is no justification for doing anything," he said 

Yet on 03/18 Russo along with the rest of council voted to proceed with the deer management plan without this count! What a difference two days makes!

Apparently the week started with Russo sure the aerial study would pass, who would even know about the secret last minute meeting early Friday morning.

Well the Patch was on it and blew the whistle: which drew lots of comments and an update immediately after the meeting. Hmmm...

History Lesson



by frankbam, 03/11/11 3:09 PM 
Re: Deer Management by SolonDeer, 03/11/11 3:09 PM the old west men drove horse and wagon around hawking miracle cures..that probably contained booze and they drive an SUV, make power point presentations, selling streighter lights, proper garden plantings and deer condoms...GO FIGURE..


Or more realistically

by SolonDeer, 03/11/11 6:29 PM 
Re: Deer Management by SolonDeer, 03/11/11 6:29 PM
and relavent to the Wed Safety Meeting, a Hunter goes to the library, learns powerpoint and then comes to tell us that the ONLY solution is more hunting. Sure there's rebound, all the more reason to hunt more. Is it effective? Sure as long as you keep ponying up $200K per year.

Oh by the way where does Scott Peters get most of his funding - HUNTING LICENCES. And here's hunting apologist Russo saying "well you have to get your funding from somewhere".

Can you spell "conflict of interest", apparently not.

Talk about snake oil salesmen, who would buy that crap, most of Solon I guess. Can you pay my share of the $200K every year, because I'm just not that gullible.

Thursday, March 24, 2011

Settle Dispute at Ballot Box

In Feburary, the Solon Times commented that the Deer Management Issue should be put on the Ballot...


ST Editorial 110224

I'd agree with one notable addition.  For too long residents have been fed propaganda that

  • we have a deer problem
  • we must do something
  • that something involves killing deer

The residents need to be educated that we don't have to kill deer, there are low cost, effective, non-lethal alternatives.

What do you think...  Comment here...

Labels Defined


  • Ann - Announcement on Web Services


  • Editorial
  • Letters - to the Editor
  • SolonForum - Solon Forum on

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Dissecting an Editorial

Let's take a closer look at the Sun Editorial published here.

"Whether Solon residents favor deer culling methods or not, they should all agree on one thing: The deer population in the city is growing and it needs to be managed in some fashion."

Why do we need to agree it needs to be "managed", wildlife was managed for millennia by nature without the need for human help.

A hastily-arranged proposal to permit bowhunting in the city this winter was wisely nixed. 


Bowhunting would have been limited to Grantwood Golf Course, one of the few wide open tracts of land in the city, contrary to the fears of some that it would have taken place in densely-populated neighborhoods. 

False, the pilot program was to be limited to a few properties during the pilot and would have expanded city wide.  Stanek said the safe area could be much smaller than 5 acres.

However, little thought was put into the overall plan and it was being rushed through at the end of the season as if city officials were suddenly made aware that there is an overpopulation of deer and something has to be done about it immediately.


Ever since the culling program with White Buffalo was terminated, it stood to reason that the deer population would start to grow. 

Maybe, but animal populations have leveled off without human intervention in the past.  With no count, this is only conjecture.

How much it has grown is unknown, and we are glad to see that Solon is looking to get the most accurate count it can of its deer population before taking any further steps.

Old News, Solon is going ahead without the count

We are also glad to see city officials are willing to listen to several options beyond simply culling the herd. If the method is legal in the state, as Councilman William Russo noted, the city will consider it as it tries to create a comprehensive deer management plan.

False, from a person who clearly won't "tolerate" views that differ from his own.  

As for legality, isn't it strange that two very viable non-lethal alternatives (contraception and capture & release) have been outlawed by the ODNR who receives its funding from special hunting interests.

We agree with Andy Montoney, regional director of wildlife services for the USDA, who told Solon City Council’s Safety Committee, “No single technology or tool is going to solve your situation.” He is right when he says the city must have a “whole toolbag” of different options such as fencing, education and population management. 

Doesn't jibe with their record which is one of killing and lip service to non-lethal options.  They mention non-lethal options and then quickly tell you what's wrong with them.

Each option in and of itself will not keep the deer herd in check, but used together, the city will be able to do a better job of keeping the deer population from getting out of hand.

Who's keeping human excess "in check"?

The important thing that everyone involved in this discussion must remember is that emotions cannot play a role in the process. It is very easy for the subject of deer management to become an emotional one, but that cannot be allowed to happen. 

Too late, we hear fictional tales of "deer attacks" and other propaganda to justify bringing back the failed experiment of "managing nature".

Few people are thrilled with the prospect of killing deer 

Really! Haven't seen the web sites where the hunters revel in their killing.

and everyone involved with fashioning this deer management plan is looking for humane methods to accomplish this.

The people who are looking into this enjoy hunting in their spare time and have been ignoring non-lethal methods.

We hope that Solon officials recognize the emotional nature of this issue and develop a thorough plan that will keep the deer population under control and will not rely simply on sharpshooting or bowhunting. 

If it weren't for the activists, that's all we'd get killing and more killing.

We hope that activists realize, however, that either sharpshooting or bowhunting is a necessary method to keep the population in check because non-lethal methods alone will not work.

We hope the hunters realize that we are onto their failed experiment and that we'd like to move into the 21st century with more enlightened approaches to our coexistence with the Earth.

That’s what we think. 

You call this "thinking"?

Share your opinion on this editorial or other topics by sending a letter to the editor to, faxing your letter to (216) 986-2340 or mailing it to Ray Jablonski, Sun News East Group editor, 5510 Cloverleaf Parkway, Cleveland, Ohio 44125. All letters must include the author’s name, city and a daytime phone number for verification and must be no more than 300 words in length.

Share your views here by commenting to this post and to the editorial here.

Sun Editorial

The Solon Sun wrote an editorial on the deer culling issue, the Solon Patch asked for comments on the editorial here.

Whether Solon residents favor deer culling methods or not, they should all agree on one thing: The deer population in the city is growing and it needs to be managed in some fashion.
The important thing that everyone involved in this discussion must remember is that emotions cannot play a role in the process. It is very easy for the subject of deer management to become an emotional one, but that cannot be allowed to happen. Few people are thrilled with the prospect of killing deer and everyone involved with fashioning this deer management plan is looking for humane methods to accomplish this. We hope that Solon officials recognize the emotional nature of this issue and develop a thorough plan that will keep the deer population under control and will not rely simply on sharpshooting or bowhunting. We hope that activists realize, however, that either sharpshooting or bowhunting is a necessary method to keep the population in check because non-lethal methods alone will not work.

John 1:46pm on Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Deer Advocates are dismissed as "emotional" and Hunting interests are deemed "rational" and nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is that Hunting causes rebound which causes more hunting (and more hunting licenses that fund the deer management (hunter) professionals, that's scientific and financial fact not emotion, its proved out that after five years we "have to do something" ignoring the fact that deer can't and never have, grown in population without limits.

Both local newspapers have a penchant for taking both sides of a particular issue without making any sense, their editorials sound much more political than principled. This editorial is no exception, a load of political nonsense, taking both sides, with dubious "facts".

As for looking for humane methods, they aren't looking too hard, in fact they are ignoring those experts in favor of hunting interests, but then if you look closely at the recreational pursuits of those at city hall you'll find far more people who shoot with a weapon than those that shoot with a camera (as I do).

Saturday, March 19, 2011

Solon Joe's

4583. Executive session?
by solonjoe3, 03/14/11 9:12 AM

Vice Mayor Krooks: ... Ok, that bring us to deer culling. Councilman Ramone has an interesting idea about using croquet mallets.

Councilwoman VeryRichMond: Mallets? You can’t be serious about croquet mallets?

Councilman Ramone: One hit on the noggin and they are out like a light. What could be more humane? Besides they are rats.

Vice Mayor Krooks: Let’s not debate how we kill them. Let’s debate how many we should kill. Let’s not even debate whether or not they are rats. Let’s instead talk about who to give the contract to and how they will make it worth our while.

Councilwoman VeryRichMond: Well, I surveyed my residents and they are opposed to croquet mallets 87% to 46%-- that is, if I don’t count all people who wanted to answer the survey different than me. Totals can add up to more than 100% if you don’t use excel.

Councilwoman Meaningless: I’m just pleased as punch that you all invited me to these meetings. Is it time for me to abstain yet?

Councilman Moonbeam: We have the money in the capital budget, although as a recurring expense it really doesn’t belong on that ledger, but nevertheless the money is cooked in, so I say we spend it.

Councilman Peanuts: I don’t understand why we have to spend public dollars on things like this.

Councilman Moonbeam: As I’ve tried to explain to you, if we don’t spend all the money we take in, residents will expect us to give some of it back.

Mayor McDrucker: She serves at my pleasure. They all serve at my pleasure. I will not tolerate leaks.

Vice Mayor Krooks: White buffalo has a very attractive offer. Campaign donations, kickbacks, and free venison stew. I don’t see anybody topping that….

Councilwoman Meaningless: I abstain.

Mayor McDrucker: And how do we know Sally wasn’t one of the many leakers?

Councilwoman VeryRichMond: I suppose if we padded the mallets, they wouldn’t hurt as much….

Councilman Ramone: That’s what I was trying to tell you. Whack! One blow. They won’t feel a thing.

Councilwoman Meaningless: I abstain.

Councilman Moonbeam: How much do these mallets cost? We have to be sure to spend the entire budget.

Counting Deer

To the Editor:

On Sept. 20, the city of Grand Haven held a special City Council work session, explaining the results of the spring's white-tailed deer spotlight survey. The survey was conducted by volunteers from Grand Valley State University's' Biology Department. This survey used the same route through and around the city on four different nights, over a 26-day time period. Spotlighting was conducted on April 21, 27; and May 4 and 16. A total of 76 deer were seen on these four nights.

We were told that the deer density for the area survey is 21.7 deer per square mile. The biology department believes that 50 percent of these deer were does. That each would produce at least one fawn each year,  increasing the population by 50 percent in just one year.

If, we are to believe this 50 percent population increase, then does that mean that in five years there will be 564 in our city per mile square? If this is true and if nature doesn't or hasn't in the past
taken care of deer population increases, then why aren't there 9,000 or 10,000 deer in the city now? (Because, of the continuous 50 percent increase in population over the last 10 or 12 years to date.)

The part that gets me, if you drive the same route at about the same  time on four different nights over 26 days, as the surveyors did, isn't  it possible that the same deer was counted two, three and even four
 times? Think about it, if you counted school children during recess  playing in a school play area four different days, wouldn't you be  counting some more than once?

 I believe GVSU's rowing team could have conducted a more accurate deer  count survey. I'm sure they would have limited their survey to one  night. Having a dozen two-man teams assigned to certain areas each,  spotlighting at the same time. This would eliminate counting the same deer, giving a more accurate count.

The next scheduled survey will be conducted this October and November.  It is understood that the spotlighting will repeatedly occur along the same route as before, on multiple nights, with emphasis on the back yards of certain residences who are calling to complain the most. I understand that one homeowner has called some 25 times since city deer have become a target. If they spotlight these yards five or six different nights won't they be counting some of the same deer? I wish we
would number the deer like in the cartoon by Kevin Collier on Sept. 23, then people would understand what I'm trying to say. I believe we all have more important problems to take up our time. Like fixing this great country of ours: by voting for freedom in November, not socialism.

 — Bob DeHare, Grand Haven