we don't! Isn't that exciting!
Just like hunting,....you never know when something might happen.
Odocoileus's Link
I think everything you posted was about tick management in pursuit of controlling Lyme Disease, not deer management based upon carrying capacity of the land, herd health, recreationaly use, etc. Am I wrong?
Maybe Dr. Scott Williams; can explain his statement as to who`s desired goals he is referring to ? The only people pissing off the general public and elected officials remain anonymous on this site !
Your last post is 100% on the money; as the Indians used to say in the old westerns "Him speak with forked tongue."
I suppose when your starting position is inherently dishonest out of the gate (posting under a false name) it would be a foolish reader who hoped that this person's posts would represent a burning desire to shine the light of truth; naive would probably be a better descriptor of someone thinking something positive would come from such a bad beginning.
Bow hunters have worked in partnership with city officials (Greenwich Sportsman & Landowners Association is notable for this) and for many years Rob Lucas & company partnered very well with the town of Darien. New Canaan is another example of this kind of partnership.
Are there people who want extermination, not management? Of course there are, but a majority simply want their expensive ornamental shrubbery and/or their flower and vegetable gardens to be left alone. Deer are opportunistic browsers; absent sufficient food sources in their natural environment they will adapt to alternative ones. This speaks directly to your point about the carrying capacity concept of wildlife management (good land stewardship).
Hunters are and will always be a minority; this hardly constitutes "news". The demographic breakdown of the non-hunting public will likewise remain fairly constant, give or take a few percent sliding in or out of a category of either some level of support (or tolerance as a necessary "evil") of approximately 80% or the foaming-at-the-mouth antihunting portion of approximately 10%.
In life, not just in hunting the first prerequisite for a healthy, honest debate is that all parties must agree on definitions. What constitutes management? What is the desired outcome of a project? When goals are in conflict nothing gets done and egos and feelings get bruised. Baseless and counterproductive ad hominems fill the air "hunters don't care if people get Lyme disease" (I'm paraphrasing but that pretty accurately sums up one baseless accusation the dearly departed tossed out with regularity). Aside from the obvious insulting nature it was a baseless, self-serving stick in the eye.
Hunters were the first conservationists in this country in the truest sense of the term. The list of non-game animals who's effective and responsible stewardship has been aided by funding from hunters (Pittman-Robertson) is lengthy. Hunters don't need to prove to anyone that they "get it" with regard to sound game management practices that benefit all segments of the population.
I hope you noticed the patronizing tone of the post towards you too Bob; "before you started paying attention...." Is the assumption you've never paid attention to anything not immediately obvious to you? Is it that you've gone through life a virtual sleep-walker, blithely unaware of life's realities?
That type of condenscending tone really smacks of the type of elitism that governance, at local, state and federal levels reeks of today. We the people in their eyes are really "we the sheeple"; aimless, clueless and waiting for the guiding hand of the master to provide us a clue on how things really work.
Obviously someone is not an honor graduate of Emily Post....
In another shining example of how life is full of irony; posters here have been admonished about having an agenda because they have taken a stand against what they feel is an unjustified decimation of the deer herd; think about that remark when put into proper context.
Outside of non-insular settings (Mumford Cove, Monhegan Island, etc) there has never been a single study demonstrating deer densities of 10-12 dpsm correlate with a reduction in Lyme disease; not one.
Esteemed centers of learning such as the Harvard School of Public Health have gone on record as saying elimination of vector-borne diseases is not achievable.
I'm attaching a link to the minority report issued by the town of Newtown in which a statement is credited to Anthony DeNicola that in towns such as Newtown (open, non-insular settings) sharpshooting will plateau out at 25-30 dpsm (page 3), more than double the 10-12 dpsm targeted goal some have put forth on this forum. Also pay attention to comments on page 4.
http://www.newtown-ct.gov/public_documents/NewtownCT_BComm/TBDACFR/Stmt%20glossary%20appendices.pdf
I and others have posted previously links to studies showing effective reduction of infective tick stages by 90% or greater.
In spite of the above facts we've had a running screed from two posters hiding behind anonymity advocating for deer reduction in settings where it hasn't been done and has been deemed unrealistic when non-lethal, more effective remedies are already available.
Who has an agenda?
The hypocrites posting under false names want to stake out the moral highground in this debate?
I agree that a small population of hunters do things that hurt their chances of getting access to private, or restricted public land by their actions. But that's true on ANY group of people,...it's the old "Few bad apples" problem.
However CtCrow is correct when it comes to the root cause of the problem in FF county it's the LACK of access to the vast tract of private land where the deer can multiply at will.
My opinion was based upon all of the posts made over the last several months. Managing ticks was your goal, killing deer was the means to that end. Whether or not hunter behaved poorly is something that has nothing to do with lyme disease and the tick population in my opinion, the impact is just way too small.