Sacramento Bee: Youth doe hunt draws fire

[marmar]

Youth doe hunt draws fire

By Ed Fletcher
[e-mail]

Published: Monday, Jul. 20, 2009 - 12:00 am | Page 4B


To animal activists, it sounds too far-fetched to be true: Arming teens with shotguns and bows and arrows to thin deer populations in southern Placer County by killing Bambi's mom.

"I think it's just absolutely ridiculous," said Victoria Connolly of Auburn.

But in response to concerns about an apparent spike in vehicle-vs.-deer collisions on Auburn Folsom Road, county officials are considering just that.

The idea is several steps and at least a year from taking place.

After examining several alternative plans for reducing deer populations, Placer County Fish and Game Commissioner Gary Flanagan said he's concluded that reducing the number of female deer though a special doe hunt is the best option. .............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/2038861.html

[JonQ]

1. Doesn't seem that outrageous

they keep fairly good track of the deer population in an area and issue permits to maintain a constant population. If that population has spiked it would make sense to issue more permits. Whether they're going to young or old people is irrelevant.

[tularetom]

7. It's actually quite relevant

The area is what you might call rural residential or exurban. There are a lot of one to five acre parcels and homes are not very far apart. As I understand it they are not planning to require that kids as young as 13 be allowed to take these deer only if accompanied by an adult.

I think it's advisable to do what is needed to control deer overpopulation in areas like this, but letting a bunch of kids run around firing slugs from a 12-ga without any adults nearby is a stupid idea.

[JonQ]

10. From the article:

"The proposal is to allow kids ages 12-17 to kill a combined 25 female deer in the problem area. Hunters would have to be licensed, accompanied by an adult and pay normal licensing and hunting fees."

[tularetom]

13. My bad

I didn't read this article and the one I did read a few weeks ago stated that adult supervision was not going to be required.

[Xithras]

40. Children cannot carry firearms anywhere in California without an adult.

The only exception to that are firearms carried on their own private property, in designated rural open carry areas.

[omega minimo]

2. This is where Placerville is.

[county worker]

5. Some hot doins there back in 1849.

[omega minimo]

9. Yeah, it was called "Hangtown" then

[county worker]

15. Isn't it the only town that hung a woman in CA and had the longest bar or something.

Gold was in them thar hills too.

[omega minimo]

16. That's what placer (gold) mining is. And they hung lots of people.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. First woman hanged in the US was Mary Surratt convicted of being part of the Lincoln assination

http://www.essortment.com/all/marysurratt_rtmf.htm

[cboy4]

31. No, that's El Dorado County.

[dysfunctional press]

3. it's better to let the excess deer to slowly starve to death.

apparently...?

i have no problem with hunting excess deer to cull/thin the herds.

[hatrack]

4. Better this approach than the current "car-cull" method . . .

Other than auto body shops, beneficiaries of BAU don't quite leap to mind.

:eyes:

[robinlynne]

6. or use birth control, which would not harm anyone.

[dysfunctional press]

8. i don't think the issue is about anyone being harmed...

they're only shooting deer.

[robinlynne]

24. disgusting. How could anyone shoot Bambi's mother? really? seriously.

[dysfunctional press]

25. have you never had venison...?

seriously- when there are too many deer, they need to be culled. it's actually the humane thing to do in the long run.

[robinlynne]

34. no. I haven't. But why not give them birth control instead of shooting them?

[PVnRT]

37. Deer birth control?

Uh....ok.

[NickB79]

38. Because average costs for administering birth control are $1,000+ per deer

There is currently work on an experimental birth control vaccine that could bring down the cost, but it is still not available for use.

Hunting, on the other hand, actually saves people money by putting meat in the freezer of the hunters.

[Xithras]

44. And California is broke. n/t

[NickB79]

46. Bingo. nt

[DrCory]

33. Bambi , and his mother, are anthropomorphic cartoon characters N/T

[SidneyCarton]

12. Have you ever tried to convince a deer to use a rubber.

It ain't pretty.

[joeybee12]

11. Yeah, it is better...nature does a better job than gun nuts...

...nature lets the stronger survive, and thins the herd by eliminating the weaker...survival of the fittest...it sounds cruel but in the long run the deer are healthier...

[dysfunctional press]

14. unfortunately, it's NOT natural...

because human populations have killed off most of the predators that would normally(i.e.naturally) keep the population in check.

a creature slowly starving to death is NOT preferable, except to sick bastards.

[ecoalex51]

17. Some Feed the Deer, the Deer feed on landscaping

The deer are aggressive, ignoring dogs,and eating landscaping.Lawns also are enjoyed.The does twin,so usually where there was one doe,there are 3 deer the following winter.Mt Lions are removed, or shot,not many people hunt,so the deer populations grow.This a problem across the country.One of the reasons I left my Pa farm,and moved to Calaveras County Ca was the Whitetails decimated my field corn,nipping off the silks;no ears.On one night, a spotter showed me 68 deer grazing in my alfalfa.Here, I fence off the fields; corn,alfalfa,garden,orchard. They are bad on my oat clover hay,I find many arrows when I bale those pieces along the road.There's no doe hunting in this County,there should be.

[joeybee12]

43. Essentially this is man's faul;t...we're the ones who encroached on

their area and destroyed their natural predators.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NickB79]

20. In the long run, it destroys the local ecosystem

Deer don't just fall over and die when they're starving. They strip the bark off of trees, eat every blade of grass, shrub, flower and sapling they can find, and start to migrate in search of more food. The deer population would die down, but it would take the local ecosystem with them. In the long run the local flora and fauna are greatly diminished.

[joeybee12]

42. Um, human encroachment is more to blame for that than the deer...

...it's not pretty to let natuer take its course, because nature is cruel...always has been.

[NickB79]

45. Then let people hunt them, as we have been doing for 20,000 years

Human predation is part of nature, so let it take its course.

And here's an example of what happens to forests if we take your hands-off advice: http://www.bhwp.org/native/impact_of_deer.htm

"White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) over-browsing is putting pressure on our already stressed native plants. More than 20 species of threatened and endangered wildflowers are being further decimated by deer. Many woodlands now have what is called a "browse line", caused by deer eating everything from the ground to about 4 feet up. Deer are destroying the shrub layer of our woodlands, where many birds nest. In places where there are more than 20 deer per square mile, songbird populations have declined. The deer eat seedling trees, leaving no possibility for forest regeneration once today's mature trees are gone. Forests that are over-browsed by deer are more susceptible to invasion from non-native invasive plant species, which deer do not readily eat."

[NickB79]

21. Humans have been hunting deer in North America for 20,000 years

Human predation IS natural for deer populations. When you refer to "nature", you are inadvertently referring to human hunters just as if you were referring to wolves or cougars.

[flvegan]

19. You see, when an animal becomes a nuisance to the preciousness that is people

then they must be killed, and by any means that are deemed necessary. If it's also pleasurable to said people, then all the better.

It's a world made for humans, and it's ours to fuck up.

[obliviously]

22. Mmmm Tender delicious tasty doe! N/T

[flvegan]

23. ...and that's all they have.

Pathetic, really.

[dysfunctional press]

26. actually, the problem is that humans have killed off many of the predators

and when the deer population in an area explodes as a result, the population has to be managed, to prevent starvation and disease.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. As long as they eat what they kill

no problem...

[Scout]

35. like Jeffrey Dahmer ate his kill? n/t

[Taitertots]

28. Exactly

When animals create road hazards, eat crops, and destroy landscaping it is time to kill them. If it is pleasurable and tasty then it is way better.


If you don't like it you can FOAD to protect the animals

[flvegan]

29. Whatever you say, princess.

[Taitertots]

30. Ok, Daisy

The Vegan is calling me princess LOL:rofl:

[superduperfarleft]

36. Good god, where's a hunting accident when you need one? n/t

[cboy4]

32. Oh okay Sarah ... Hopefully they'll start killing the mountain lions also.

You betcha

:sarcasm:

[NickB79]

39. I have seen the results of deer overpopulation on native ecosystems

Woodlands in which the native wildflowers and undergrowth have been denuded. The new saplings that will grow to replace the older trees either eaten to the ground, or their bark stripped and killed.

When deer populations reach these levels, it goes beyond being a nuisance to humans. It begins to do serious harm to the native ecosystem and the other species that inhabit it.

For example: http://www.bhwp.org/native/impact_of_deer.htm

"White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) over-browsing is putting pressure on our already stressed native plants. More than 20 species of threatened and endangered wildflowers are being further decimated by deer. Many woodlands now have what is called a "browse line", caused by deer eating everything from the ground to about 4 feet up. Deer are destroying the shrub layer of our woodlands, where many birds nest. In places where there are more than 20 deer per square mile, songbird populations have declined. The deer eat seedling trees, leaving no possibility for forest regeneration once today's mature trees are gone. Forests that are over-browsed by deer are more susceptible to invasion from non-native invasive plant species, which deer do not readily eat."

This sounds very similar to what I've seen in our forests here in Minnesota. Does this sound like a situation that warrants a hand-off approach?